Central Coast Blue
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR
(SCH #2019120560)
prepared by
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
Pismo Beach, California 93449
Contact: Matt Downing, AICP, Community Development Director prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
1530 Monterey Street, Suite D
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
September 2023
Central Coast Blue
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR
(SCH #2019120560)
prepared by
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
Pismo Beach, California 93449
Contact: Matt Downing, AICP, Community Development Director prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
1530 Monterey Street, Suite D
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
September 2023
This page intentionally left blank.
Table of Contents
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................1 2 Background and Project Description ..............................................................................................3
2.1 Original Central Coast Blue Project .....................................................................................3
2.2 Modified Central Coast Blue Project ...................................................................................8 3 Decision Not to Prepare Subsequent EIR .................................................................................... 21 4 Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project .................... 23
4.1 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 23
4.2 Biological Resources ......................................................................................................... 36
4.3 Cultural and Tribal Resources .......................................................................................... 49
4.4 Energy .............................................................................................................................. 55
4.5 Environmental Justice ...................................................................................................... 58
4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............................................................................................. 59
4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................... 63
4.8 Hydrology/Water Quality ................................................................................................. 66
4.9 Land Use/Planning ........................................................................................................... 69
4.10 Noise ................................................................................................................................ 70
4.11 Transportation ................................................................................................................. 87
4.12 Effects Found Not to Be Significant ................................................................................. 93 5 Federal Cross-Cutting Environmental Regulations Evaluation .................................................. 103
5.1 Federal Endangered Species Act .................................................................................... 103
5.2 National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 ............................................................ 104
5.3 Clean Air Act ................................................................................................................... 105
5.4 Coastal Zone Management Act ...................................................................................... 106
5.5 Farmland Protection Policy Act ...................................................................................... 106
5.6 Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management ....................................................... 107
5.7 Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and Executive Order 13168 ................................................................................................................... 107
5.8 Executive Order 11990 – Protection of Wetlands ......................................................... 107
5.9 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act ............................................................................................. 107
5.10 Safe Drinking Water Act – Source Water Protection ..................................................... 108
5.11 Executive Order on Trails for America in the 21st Century ........................................... 108
5.12 Executive Order 13007 – Indian Sacred Sites ................................................................ 108
5.13 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act .................................. 108
5.14 Executive Order 12898 - Environmental Justice ............................................................ 109
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue
ii
6 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 110 7 References and Preparers.......................................................................................................... 111
7.1 References ..................................................................................................................... 111
7.2 List of Preparers ............................................................................................................. 113 Tables
Table 1 Modified Project Components ...............................................................................................9 Table 2 Phase I Es�mated Maximum Daily Construc�on Air Pollutant Emissions – Modified Project ................................................................................................................................ 27 Table 3 Phase I Es�mated Maximum Quarterly Construc�on Air Pollutant Emissions – Modified Project ................................................................................................................................ 28 Table 4 Phase II Es�mated Maximum Daily Construc�on Air Pollutant Emissions – Modified Project ................................................................................................................................ 29 Table 5 Phase II Es�mated Maximum Quarterly Construc�on Air Pollutant Emissions – Modified Project ................................................................................................................................ 30 Table 6 Mi�gated Phase I Maximum Quarterly Construc�on Air Pollutant Emissions – Modified Project ................................................................................................................................ 34 Table 7 Mi�gated Phase II Maximum Quarterly Construc�on Air Pollutant Emissions – Modified Project ................................................................................................................................ 35 Table 8 Construc�on Fuel Consump�on – Modified Project ........................................................... 55 Table 9 Es�mated GHG Emissions during Construc�on (Phases I and II) – Modified Project ......... 61 Table 10 Combined Annual GHG Emissions – Modified Project ........................................................ 62 Table 11 Day�me Well Construc�on Noise Levels at Nearest Sensi�ve Receivers (dBA Leq) – Modified Project ................................................................................................................ 73 Table 12 Nigh�me Well Construc�on Noise Levels at Nearest Sensi�ve Receivers – Injec�on and Produc�on Wells - Modified Project1 ................................................................................ 75 Table 13 Nigh�me Well Construc�on Noise Levels at Nearest Sensi�ve Receivers – Monitoring Wells - Modified Project1 ................................................................................................... 76 Table 14 Reference Noise Levels ........................................................................................................ 78 Table 15 Es�mated ATF Complex Exterior Noise Levels at Nearest Sensi�ve Receivers ................... 79 Table 16 Mi�gated Day�me Well Construc�on Noise Levels at Nearest Sensi�ve Receivers – Modified Project ................................................................................................................ 88 Table 17 Mi�gated Nigh�me 24-Hour Well Drilling Noise Levels at Nearest Sensi�ve Receivers – Injec�on and Produc�on Wells – Modified Project1 ......................................................... 89 Table 18 Mi�gated Nigh�me 24-Hour Well Drilling Noise Levels at Nearest Sensi�ve Receivers – Monitoring Wells – Modified Project1 ............................................................................... 90 Table 19 Es�mated Maximum Annual Emissions (tons per year) – Modified Project ..................... 106
Table of Contents
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR iii
Figures
Figure 1 Regional Loca�on of Original Project .....................................................................................4 Figure 2 Original Project Components with Known Loca�ons – Full Extent ........................................5 Figure 3 Original Project Components with Known Loca�ons – Focused Extent .................................6 Figure 4 Regional Loca�on of Modified Project ................................................................................ 12 Figure 5 Modified Project Components – Full Extent ....................................................................... 13 Figure 6 Modified Project Components – Focused Extent ................................................................ 14 Figure 7 ATF Conceptual Site Layout ................................................................................................. 16 Appendices
Appendix A Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Modeling Appendix B 2023 Biological Resources Assessment
Appendix C Jurisdictional Delineation
Appendix D 2023 Supplemental Cultural Resources Assessment (CONFIDENTIAL) Appendix E Noise Modeling
Appendix F 2023 Paleontological Resources Assessment
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue
iv
This page intentionally left blank.
Introduction
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 1
1 Introduction
This document is an Addendum to the Central Coast Blue Project Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse [SCH] # 2019120560), which was certified in February 2021 (herein referred to as “certified EIR”) for the original Central Coast Blue Project (Original Project).
In accordance with Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a lead agency shall prepare an Addendum to an EIR if some changes or additions are necessary that will not have significant new impacts or substantially increase previously identified significant impacts.
Specifically, the CEQA Guidelines state:
The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred (Section 15164[a]); An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the certified EIR or adopted negative declaration (Section 15164[c]); The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the certified EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project (Section 15164[d]); and A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence (Section 15164[e]).
This Addendum has been prepared in accordance with relevant provisions of CEQA (as amended) and the CEQA Guidelines.
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an addendum to a previously certified EIR or adopted negative declaration is the appropriate environmental document in instances when “only minor technical changes or additions are necessary” and when changes to the project, changes to circumstances, and/or new information do not involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects beyond those identified in the previous EIR.
This Addendum describes the details of several modifications to the layout of project facilities that have occurred during evolution of the design process, which have resulted in new project impact areas beyond those identified and evaluated in the certified EIR. This modified layout is referred to herein as the Modified Project. The analysis compares impacts to those identified in the certified EIR for the Original Project and demonstrates the environmental impacts of the Modified Project are within the scope of the impacts identified in the certified EIR and that no new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would result from the Modified Project.
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
2 This page intentionally left blank.
Background and Project Description
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 3
2 Background and Project Description
The Final EIR for the Original Project was certified in February 2021 (SCH #2019120560) and consists of the responses to public and agency comments received on the Draft EIR and the text of the Final EIR as revised in response to public and agency comments. The certified EIR is accompanied by a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which provides guidance for implementation of the mitigation measures developed for the Original Project. Information and technical analyses from the certified EIR are utilized and/or referenced throughout this Addendum, as necessary.
This section provides an overview of the Original Project and the Modified Project to provide context for the evaluation of potential changes to environmental impacts disclosed in the certified EIR that may result from the Modified Project.
2.1 Original Central Coast Blue Project
Original Project Location
The project area for the Original Project is in the city of Grover Beach and portions of unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, including the community of Oceano, which is a census-designated place.
Figure 1 shows the regional location of the project area, which is approximately 8.5 miles south of the city of San Luis Obispo. The location of Original Project components with known locations are shown in Figure 2 with a magnified view shown in Figure 3. At the time of certification of the certified EIR, the locations of some project components, including the new production well and potential agricultural irrigation pipelines, were not known and are therefore not depicted on Figure 2 and Figure 3 but were assumed to be located within the project area shown on Figure 1.
Description of Original Project
The Original Project is a regional indirect potable reuse project intended to enhance supply reliability by reducing the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin’s (SMGB) vulnerability to drought and seawater intrusion. The project is a multi-agency collaboration between the Cities of Pismo Beach, Grover Beach, and Arroyo Grande and the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD).1 The project would involve injection of advanced purified water into the SMGB via a series of injection wells, installed at various locations in the SMGB, to develop a seawater intrusion barrier and augment groundwater supplies. Water for the Original Project would be sourced from two of the region’s wastewater treatment facilities - the Pismo Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and the SSLOCSD WWTP. Prior to injection to the SMGB, water would undergo full advanced treatment at a proposed advanced treatment facility (ATF) complex.
1 As the water supply beneficiaries, the three cities have formed a joint powers authority – the Central Coast Blue Regional Recycled Water Authority – to facilitate implementation of the project. SSLOCSD has been and will continue to be part of the planning, design, construction, and operation phases of the project.
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
4 Figure 1 Regional Location of Original Project
Background and Project Description
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 5
Figure 2 Original Project Components with Known Locations – Full Extent
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
6 Figure 3 Original Project Components with Known Locations – Focused Extent
Background and Project Description
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 7
Under the Original Project, the ATF complex would include an ATF building with treatment equipment and staff support facilities, an aboveground equalization basin, an advanced purified water storage tank, and a pump station, which would all be constructed on the same property. The ATF would treat a combination of flows from the Pismo Beach WWTP and the SSLOCSD WWTP for injection in the SMGB and potentially for agricultural irrigation. The ATF would be designed with an initial influent and treatment capacity of up to 1.3 million gallons per day (mgd) and a final influent and treatment capacity of 5.4 mgd. During Phase I, the ATF would receive and treat secondary treated effluent flows from the Pismo Beach WWTP, and during Phase II, the ATF would receive and treat secondary treated effluent flows from both the Pismo Beach and SSLOCSD WWTPs. The ATF could initially produce up to 1.0 mgd of advanced purified water with a final production capacity of up to 3.9 mgd.2 The advanced treatment process at the ATF would consist of microfiltration (MF), reverse osmosis (RO), and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection with advanced oxidation.
The Original Project would also include a series of pipelines to accomplish the following: 1) convey secondary treated effluent from the Pismo Beach WWTP from the existing Pismo Beach outfall pipeline to the proposed ATF; 2) convey secondary treated effluent from the SSLOCSD WWTP to the proposed ATF; 3) convey advanced purified water from the proposed ATF to the injection wells; and 4) convey concentrate from the proposed ATF to the existing Pismo Beach outfall pipeline.3 Under the Original Project, seven injection wells would be installed at five locations, each requiring approximately 3,000 square feet of land and each with an injection capacity of approximately 800 acre-feet per year (AFY). The injection well network would be accompanied by a network of nested monitoring wells at ten locations throughout the project area, each requiring approximately 25 square feet. Under Phase I, a total of approximately 900 AFY of advanced purified water would be injected into the SMGB, and under Phase II, a total of approximately 3,500 AFY of advanced purified water would be injected into the SMGB. In addition, one new production well owned and operated by the City of Pismo Beach would be installed. At the time of certification of the Final EIR for the Original Project, the location of this new production well had not yet been determined but was likely to be sited in Grover Beach.
As part of the Original Project, several existing production wells would be utilized to extract the injected advanced purified water. Under Phase I, groundwater pumping by the Northern Cities Management Area (NCMA) agencies would potentially increase up to approximately 2,500 AFY.4 Under Phase II of the proposed project, the NCMA agencies would potentially increase groundwater pumping up to their full entitlement for urban uses of 4,330 AFY. Groundwater pumping would continue to be subject to the existing SMGB Adjudication Agreement and the NCMA agencies’ ongoing adaptive management program, and no changes to the existing groundwater entitlements established in the SMGB Adjudication Agreement would occur.
Under the Original Project, a portion of water from the ATF complex may be used for agricultural irrigation of lands in Grover Beach and generally south of Oceano. In this scenario, additional distribution pipelines would be constructed to carry recycled water from the ATF complex to the irrigated lands.
2 The difference between influent and production flows from the ATF are a result of the water losses that occur over the course of several steps of treatment processes.
3 The Pismo Beach outfall pipeline was previously referred to as “WWTP discharge pipeline” in the certified EIR. 4 The Cities of Pismo Beach, Grover Beach, and Arroyo Grande and Oceano Community Services District (OCSD) are collectively referred to as the NCMA agencies. The agencies manage groundwater extraction in their portion of the SMGB to protect long-term sustainable use and to prevent seawater intrusion.
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
8 The certified EIR for the Original Project analyzed the majority of project components, including the injection wells, monitoring wells, pipelines, and ATF complex at a more detailed, project-specific level because they would be constructed in the near-term and the construction details, locations, and component specifications were generally well-known at the time. However, because the location, engineering, and/or construction details were not known for some project components at the time, the analysis also evaluated the environmental impacts of some components, including the new production well and the agricultural irrigation pipelines, at a programmatic level.
Construction Activities
Construction of the Original Project would occur in two main phases. Phase I would include construction of five injection wells (IW-1, IW-2A, IW-3, IW-4, and IW-5A), pipelines, and the ATF complex with its initial production capacity designed to treat flows from the Pismo Beach WWTP.
Phase II would include construction of the remaining two injection wells (IW-2B and IW-5B), installation of additional pipelines to connect these injection wells to the pipelines constructed under Phase I, construction of the agricultural irrigation pipelines, and expansion upgrades to the ATF complex to achieve its final production capacity. At the time of certification of the Final EIR for the Original Project, it was unknown whether the new production well would be constructed under Phase I or II.
Construction of the Original Project was anticipated to last approximately 24 months and require a three-week period of 24-hour well drilling activities for each new well. Groundwater produced during well development would be disposed of via connections to the existing Pismo Beach WWTP discharge pipeline that runs below State Route (SR) 1. Construction methods for the proposed pipelines would predominantly involve open trenching, with augur boring or horizontal directional drilling methods used as needed. Trenches would be excavated to approximately six feet in depth and would be backfilled after pipeline installation. To accommodate the ATF complex, the location of the ATF complex would likely need to be graded to provide site access, appropriate stormwater drainage, and a level base for the ATF and appurtenant structures. Excavation depth for the ATF complex was not anticipated to exceed 20 feet.
Operation and Maintenance
Operation and maintenance of the Original Project would require approximately 15 employees.
Maintenance activities would primarily consist of weekly visits to the injection, monitoring, and production wells; semi-annual inspections of pipeline and exercising valves; and semi-weekly chemical deliveries to the ATF complex.
2.2 Modified Central Coast Blue Project
The Modified Central Coast Blue Project involves changes to the locations of components of the Original Project, which have shifted during evolution of the siting and design process. The overall purpose, objectives, and nature of the Original Project would remain the same under the Modified Project. Similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would consist of an ATF complex, pipelines, injection wells, monitoring wells, one new production well, a pump station, and potential agricultural irrigation pipelines. The following subsections provide additional details on the locations and characteristics of components of the Modified Project and indicate the ways in which the Modified Project differs from the Original Project.
Background and Project Description
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 9
Modified Project Location
As shown in Figure 4, the Modified Project area would remain largely the same as the Original Project area with the exception of an approximately 0.5-acre area immediately adjacent to the southwestern boundary of the Original Project area, which would be added as a potential monitoring well location for MW-NCMA South A/B/C. The Modified Project area would continue to be located in Grover Beach and portions of unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, including the community of Oceano. Table 1 describes the approximate locations of Modified Project components. Figure 5 presents a map of Modified Project components as well as the existing Pismo Beach and SSLOCSD WWTPs. Figure 6 presents a magnified view of project components. Due to ongoing siting and design efforts, several alternative pipeline alignments and well locations are included in the Modified Project to provide flexibility in ultimate siting. In addition, these figures also include an outline of the Study Area for the Modified Project, which is inclusive of the anticipated areas that would be required for equipment staging, materials laydown, and trenchless pipeline installation during construction activities. These areas were not previously defined at the time of certification of the Final EIR for the Original Project.
Table 1 Modified Project Components
Project
Component Address/Description Existing Use
Different Location from
Original Project?
ATF Complex,
PB-23 and MW-
3C/3D
980 Huber Street (between Huber Street and
Barca Street approximately 120 feet north of
Calvin Court), Grover Beach
An approximately 1.5-
acre parcel that
contains several
unpaved storage yards.
A portion of the parcel
is currently utilized by
Kautz Towing.
Partially – the location
of the ATF complex
remains the same. The
location of PB-23 has
been defined, and MW-
3C/3D (labeled as MW-
3D/3E in the certified
EIR) has shifted.
Property immediately south of 980 Huber
Street along Calvin Court, Grover Beach
(Assessor’s Parcel Number 060-543-007; no
street address)
Eucalyptus grove Yes
Concentrate
Pipelines
955 South 4th Street, Grover Beach Unpaved storage yard and paved roadway
Yes – modified location
Property immediately south of 980 Huber
Street along Calvin Court, Grover Beach
(Assessor’s Parcel Number 060-543-007; no
street address)
Eucalyptus grove Yes – modified location
South 4th Street and Calvin Court Paved roadway Yes – modified location East of SR 1 and Coolidge Drive intersection,
Oceano
Coastal Dunes RV Park
and Campground and
Union Pacific Railroad
track
Yes – modified location
IW-1 City of Grover Beach parking lot east of
railroad tracks at western terminus of
Rockaway Avenue
Parking lot Yes – modified location
IW-2A, IW-2B 550 Farroll Road, Grover Beach Undeveloped land Yes – modified location IW-2A/IW-2B
Alternate
Farroll Road right-of-way between South 6th
Street and South 7th Street, Grover Beach
Paved roadway Yes – new component
IW-3 Monroe Drive right-of-way between
Norswing Drive and SR 1, Oceano
Undeveloped land Yes – modified location
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
10 Project
Component Address/Description Existing Use
Different Location from
Original Project?
IW-4 Alternate Norswing Drive right-of-way between
Mendel Drive and Pershing Drive, Oceano
Grass parkway Yes – new component
IW-5A, IW-5B,
MW-5A/5B/5C
1600 Aloha Place, Oceano SSLOCSD WWTP No
MW-1A/1B South 3rd Street right-of-way north of
Longbranch Avenue, Grover Beach
Paved roadway Yes – modified location
MW-1A/1B
Alternate
South 3rd Street right-of-way between West
Grand Avenue and Rockaway Avenue, Grover
Beach
Paved roadway Yes – modified location
MW-1C/1D South 6th Street right-of-way between
Rockaway Avenue and Longbranch Avenue,
Grover Beach
Undeveloped land No
MW-1C/1D
Alternate
South 7th Street right-of-way between West
Grand Avenue and Rockaway Avenue, Grover
Beach
Paved roadway Yes – modified location
MW-2A/2B/2C Barca Street right-of-way south of Farroll
Road, Grover Beach
Paved roadway Yes – modified location
MW-2A/2B/2C
Alternate
Farroll Road right-of-way between South 6th
Street and South 7th Street, Grover Beach
Paved roadway Yes – modified location
MW-2D/2E/2F Barca Street right-of-way north of ATF site, Grover Beach
Paved roadway Yes – modified location
MW-3A/3B East of the eastern terminus of Pier Avenue,
Oceano
Coastal Dunes RV Park
and Campground
No – previously
evaluated as MW-4A/4B
in the certified EIR
MW-4A/4B Dewey Drive right-of-way between Pershing
Drive and Mendel Drive, Oceano
Grass parkway Yes – new component
MW-4C/4D West of the western terminus of The Pike,
Grover Beach
Stormwater detention
basin
No
MW-5D/5E/5F 1650 Front Street, Oceano Oceano Depot No
MW-NCMA
North A/B/C
Produce Place and 26th Street right-of-way,
Oceano
Unpaved roadway Yes – new component
MW-NCMA
South A/B/C
35.0834, -120.6066, Oceano Unpaved roadway Yes – new component Secondary
Effluent
Pipelines
Rights-of-way of SR 1, Coolidge Drive,
Norswing Drive, Mendel Drive, Lakeside
Avenue, Calvin Court, South 4th Street, Aloha
Place, Railroad Street, Ocean Street, and
Delta Lane in Oceano and Grover Beach
Paved roadways Partially – some
alignments are modified
Property immediately south of 980 Huber
Street along Calvin Court, Grover Beach
(Assessor’s Parcel Number 060-543-007; no
street address)
Eucalyptus grove Yes – new location
955 South 4th Street, Grover Beach Unpaved storage yard Yes – modified location East of SR 1 and Coolidge Drive intersection,
Oceano
Coastal Dunes RV Park
and Campground and
Union Pacific Railroad
track
Yes – modified location
494 Air Park Drive, Oceano Oceano Campground Yes – modified location
Background and Project Description
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 11
Project
Component Address/Description Existing Use
Different Location from
Original Project?
561 Air Park Drive, Oceano Oceano County Airport Yes – modified location 1600 Aloha Place, Oceano SSLOCSD WWTP Yes – modified location Purified Water
Distribution
Pipelines
Rights-of-way of Barca Street, South 4th
Street, Calvin Court, Farroll Road, South 5th
Street, Rockaway Avenue, SR 1, Coolidge
Drive, Norswing Drive, Monroe Drive,
Truman Drive, Mendel Drive, Lakeside
Avenue, Aloha Place, Railroad Street, Ocean
Street, and Delta Lane in Oceano and Grover
Beach
Paved roadways Partially - some
alignments are modified
Property immediately south of 980 Huber
Street along Calvin Court, Grover Beach
(Assessor’s Parcel Number 060-543-007; no
street address)
Eucalyptus grove Yes – new location
955 South 4th Street, Grover Beach Unpaved storage yard Yes – modified location East of intersection of SR 1 and Coolidge
Drive, Oceano
Coastal Dunes RV Park
and Campground and
Union Pacific Railroad
track
Yes – modified location
494 Air Park Drive, Oceano Oceano Campground Yes – modified location 561 Air Park Drive, Oceano Oceano County Airport Yes – modified location 1600 Aloha Place, Oceano SSLOCSD WWTP Yes – modified location ATF = advanced treatment facility; IW = injection well; MW = monitoring well; PB = Pismo Beach production well; SSLOCSD = South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District; WWTP = wastewater treatment plant
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
12 Figure 4 Regional Location of Modified Project
Background and Project Description
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 13
Figure 5 Modified Project Components – Full Extent
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
14 Figure 6 Modified Project Components – Focused Extent
Background and Project Description
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 15
Description of Modified Project
The Modified Project consists of the following: an ATF complex; purified water distribution, secondary effluent, brine, and sewer pipelines; injection and monitoring wells; a pump station; and a new production well. As with the Original Project, the water produced by the Modified Project would be injected into the groundwater basin and extracted via existing production wells for the Cities of Pismo Beach, Grover Beach, and Arroyo Grande, resulting in increased groundwater pumping from existing production wells without changing the existing urban use entitlement of the existing SMGB Adjudication Agreement (i.e., the Superior Court of California’s 2005 Stipulation and 2008 final order).
Nothing in this Addendum is intended to limit the ability of the NCMA agencies from accessing their full groundwater entitlements as established in the SMGB Adjudication Agreement. Each of these components of the Modified Project is described below.
Advanced Water Treatment Facility Complex
Similar to the Original Project, the ATF complex would include an ATF building with treatment equipment and staff support facilities, an equalization tank, and outdoor chemical storage consisting of bulk tanks with secondary containment. Under the Modified Project, the ATF complex would also include a new production well (PB-23) and a monitoring well (MW-3C/3D). A conceptual site layout for the ATF is shown in Figure 7. The influent, treatment, and production capacities of the ATF as well as the three-step treatment process and discharge of the RO concentrate waste stream remain the same under the Modified Project as compared to the Original Project with the exception that some of the waste stream from the ATF complex may be discharged to the sanitary sewer under the Modified Project in addition to the Pismo Beach outfall pipeline. The Modified Project would similarly receive and treat secondary treated effluent flows from the Pismo Beach WWTP during Phase I and from the SSLOCSD WWTP during Phase II. The initial and final production capacities of the ATF would be generally similar to those of the Original Project, but the initial and final production capacities of the Modified Project would each be increased by approximately 0.1 mgd as compared to the Original Project. The ATF complex would also include pumps to convey the secondary treated effluent through the advanced treatment processes and to convey advanced purified water to the injection wells. At the time of certification of the Final EIR, the location of these pumps within the ATF complex was not known. Under the Modified Project, the pumps to move water from the secondary treated effluent equalization tank through the MF filters would be housed in a stand-alone building next to the equalization basin in a rectangular, cast-in-place concrete building to limit noise and corrosion due to weather. The pumps to convey advanced purified water to the injection wells would be located within the ATF building.
Pipeline Network
Similar to the Original Project, a series of pipelines would be required under the Modified Project to accomplish largely the same purposes of conveying secondary treated effluent to the ATF, conveying advanced purified water from the ATF to the injection wells, and conveying concentrate from the ATF to the existing Pismo Beach outfall pipeline. In addition, under the Modified Project, pipelines would be installed to convey backwash water from certain injection wells to the sanitary sewer system and the Pismo Beach outfall pipeline as well as sanitary sewer waste streams from the ATF complex to the sanitary sewer system. Potential locations for the pipelines under the Modified Project are shown in Figure 6.
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
16 Figure 7 ATF Conceptual Site Layout
Pump Station
The Original Project anticipated construction of a pump station at the ATF complex. Under the Modified Project, the new pump station would instead be constructed at the SSLOCSD WWTP to pump secondary treated effluent to the ATF as part of Phase II. The pump station would be constructed at the SSLOCSD WWTP because it is not feasible to access secondary effluent flows from this WWTP at the ATF complex.
Groundwater Injection and Monitoring Wells
Similar to the Original Project, seven injection wells would be installed at five locations under the Modified Project. Potential locations for the injection wells are shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6 and are
Background and Project Description
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 17
based on preliminary groundwater modeling of hydrogeologic conditions. The injection wells would each require up to approximately 4,000 square feet of land, which would be larger than the 3,000- square-foot impact area originally anticipated for injection wells under the Original Project. Under the Modified Project, equipment associated with injection wells would have a mix of aboveground and belowground facilities, the location of which would depend on the site, space constraints, and surrounding land uses. These injection wells would be similar in injection capacity and materials to those evaluated for the Original Project and would require similar appurtenant facilities (e.g., electrical panels, water storage tanks). However, the diameters of the injection wells would be approximately 20 inches to 48 inches (depending on the depth), which would be larger as compared to the 12-inch diameter of the injection wells included in the Original Project. Under the Modified Project, the advanced purified water would be injected at a depth of approximately 160 to 680 feet below ground surface, which is slightly different than the depth range of 200 to 600 feet originally anticipated for the Original Project. Although the range of injection depths has changed, the Modified Project involves injection of advanced purified water into the same confined deep aquifers as those contemplated in the Final EIR for the Original Project. The Modified Project would result in injection of similar quantities of advanced purified water into the groundwater basin under Phases I and II as compared to the Original Project. In addition, the Modified Project includes provisions to monitor groundwater levels that would facilitate adjustment to injection rates accordingly to prevent surfacing of advanced purified water and/or groundwater.
Similar to the Original Project, the injection well network under the Modified Project would be accompanied by a network of nested monitoring wells at 12 locations (an increase of two locations as compared to the Original Project). Potential locations for the monitoring wells are shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6 and are based on the minimum travel times (i.e., distances) specified by regulatory requirements. The type, materials and aboveground features of these monitoring wells would be similar to those of the Original Project, but these wells would only occupy approximately five square feet of surface area, which would be a decrease of 20 square feet as compared to the Original Project, and would extend to a depth of 680 feet under the Modified Project as compared to the depth of 400 feet anticipated for the Original Project.
At the time of certification of the Final EIR for the Original Project, the test injection well that was constructed in 2021 in the County of San Luis Obispo’s Coastal Dunes RV Park and Campground was expected to be converted to an operational injection well (IW-4) as part of the Original Project. This well is located in the southernmost part of the Coastal Dunes RV Park and Campground and labeled as “IW-4 (Existing)” in Figure 5 and Figure 6. However, this park has a land use category of “Recreation,” and the County of San Luis Obispo has indicated Public Utility Facilities are not an allowed, special, or principally permitted use in this land use category pursuant to Table O in the San Luis Obispo County General Plan Coastal Zone Framework for Planning. As a result, conversion of the test injection well to an operational injection well would require an amendment to the County of San Luis Obispo’s Local Coastal Program, which is not proposed at this time. Therefore, an alternative location for IW-4 has been identified and is considered in this Addendum as part of the Modified Project, and the test injection well is now considered a back-up alternate location for IW-4. Because the test injection well remains as an alternate location for IW-4, the Modified Project assumes this well may be utilized as an operational injection well for the purposes of CEQA, subject to completion of a Local Coastal Program amendment.
Production Wells
As with the Original Project, existing production wells would be utilized to extract the injected advanced purified water under the Modified Project. The SMGB is adjudicated and was separated into
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
18 three Management Areas in the adjudication process, one of which is the NCMA. The Cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, and Pismo Beach along with the Oceano Community Services District overlie the urban portion of the NCMA in the SMGB.
Groundwater entitlements (including the agricultural conversion credit) for the three Cities (3,430 AFY) account for approximately 40 percent of the Cities’ water supply. However, due to the threat of seawater intrusion during the most recent drought, the NCMA agencies have relied heavily on conservation and use of their surface water supplies to reduce groundwater pumping to less than 1,000 AFY. Under Phase I of the Modified Project, groundwater pumping by the project partners (Cities of Pismo Beach, Grover Beach, and Arroyo Grande) would increase in line with the adaptive management strategies implemented by the NCMA agencies. Based on groundwater modeling, Phase 1 would enable the project partners to potentially increase groundwater pumping for total NCMA agency pumping of approximately 2,500 AFY. Under Phase II of the proposed project, these three Cities would potentially increase groundwater pumping to their full entitlement for urban uses under the existing SMGB Adjudication Agreement. The anticipated changes to groundwater extraction would remain the same under the Modified Project as the Original Project, and groundwater pumping would continue to be subject to the existing SMGB Adjudication Agreement. As with the Original Project, the Modified Project would in no way change existing entitlements or limit pumping rights established by the SMGB Adjudication Agreement, which is outside the scope of this Addendum. In addition, similar to the Original Project, the NCMA agencies would continue to implement their ongoing adaptive management program for groundwater extraction in response to varying year-to- year climatic and groundwater conditions. Similar to the Original Project, one new production well (referred to herein as PB-23) would be constructed and operated under the Modified Project by the City of Pismo Beach to replace an existing well that is failing. The location of the new production well was previously unknown at the time of certification of the certified EIR for the Original Project. Under the Modified Project, this new production well would be located at the ATF complex.
Agricultural Irrigation Pipelines
The Original Project included a programmatic evaluation of the environmental impacts of potential agricultural irrigation pipelines that may be installed between the ATF complex and agricultural lands located in Grover Beach and generally south of Oceano to supply recycled water for irrigation. At the time of certification of the Final EIR for the Original Project, the locations of these pipelines were not known. Their locations remain unknown, and the Modified Project does not propose any changes to this component because they are unlikely to be constructed. Therefore, it is not discussed further in this Addendum.
Construction Activities
The general construction characteristics of the Modified Project would be similar to those of the Original Project. Phase I of the Modified Project would include construction of four injection wells (IW-1, IW-2A, IW-3, and IW-4 Alternate or IW-5A), nine monitoring wells, one production well, the pipelines conveying secondary treated effluent from the Pismo Beach WWTP to the ATF, the concentrate pipeline, the purified water distribution pipelines, and the ATF complex with its initial production capacity designed to treat flows from the Pismo Beach WWTP. Phase II would include construction of the remaining three injection wells (IW-2B, IW-4 Alternate or IW-5A, and IW-5B), two monitoring wells, purified water pipelines to connect the new wells to the existing purified water distribution system, a pipeline and pump station to convey secondary treated effluent from the SSLOCSD WWTP to the ATF, and expansion upgrades to the ATF complex to achieve its final production capacity. (Although it would not be utilized in Phase II, the pipeline from the SSLOCSD
Background and Project Description
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 19
WWTP to the ATF could be constructed in Phase I to take advantage of cost efficiencies of installing two pipelines in parallel [with the purified water pipeline from the AWPF to IW-5A] and to minimize local impacts from construction.) Construction of the Modified Project is anticipated to last approximately 24 months for Phase I and approximately 15 months for Phase II.
The timing, duration, and equipment required for construction of the injection, monitoring, and production wells activities would remain the same under the Modified Project as those required for the Original Project with the exception that each monitoring well would only require two weeks of 24-hour well drilling activities (a reduction in schedule as compared to the Original Project). As with the Original Project, groundwater produced during well development may be disposed of via connections to the existing Pismo Beach outfall pipeline that runs below SR 1. Under the Modified Project, there is also the option for produced groundwater to be disposed of via temporary storage with timed release to the sanitary or storm sewer or trucking up to one mile for percolation into a storm retention basin, which would require approximately 1,250 total truck trips per injection and production well and approximately 60 total truck trips per monitoring well. Construction dewatering would also be required at the ATF complex, and disposal of produced groundwater would require approximately 72 truck trips per day on average. Minor dewatering during construction activities may also be required at other locations, such as the pump station proposed within the boundaries of the SSLOCSD WWTP. The project includes use of two existing shallow monitoring wells located between the ATF complex and Oceano Lagoon, located approximately 700 feet to the west of the ATF complex location, to monitor groundwater levels during dewatering activities. If groundwater levels fall below what would be expected due to regular, background seasonal variation, the project includes implementation of an adaptive management plan to avoid an adverse reduction in surface water levels in Oceano Lagoon, including an evaluation program to identify whether reduced groundwater levels are related to project dewatering activities and if so, the timely implementation of the necessary management actions, which may include, but would not be limited to, temporary cessation of dewatering and/or gradual discharge of groundwater produced from dewatering into the City of Grover Beach’s stormwater detention basin at the southern terminus of Barca Street and/or the City of Grover Beach’s stormwater drainage system, which currently discharge to Meadow Creek upstream of Oceano Lagoon, to supplement surface water levels.5 Construction of the pump station at the SSLOCSD WWTP would also have similar construction characteristics as those of the wells, with the exception that nighttime construction activities would not be required. Construction methods and excavation/grading requirements for the proposed pipelines and ATF complex would remain generally the same under the Modified Project as the Original Project with the exception that excavation depth for the ATF complex would extend to 25 feet, which is an increase of five feet as compared to the Original Project, and excavation depth for the trenchless pipeline crossing of the railroad tracks would reach up to approximately 16 feet in depth, which is an increase of 10 feet as compared to the Original Project. Construction of the Modified Project would result in the removal of all trees located on the 980 Huber Street property as well as on Assessor’s Parcel Number 060-543-007 to accommodate the ATF complex.
As part of Modified Project design, construction activities (including staging/laydown yards) would avoid mapped California bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus) as well as marsh and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) scrub habitats.
5 The project would be required to comply with all applicable permitting requirements should discharge to the stormwater detention basin/stormwater drainage system become necessary.
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
20 Site Access
Site access at the ATF complex under the Modified Project would remain the same as under the Original Project. In addition, similar to the Original Project, construction of the project components would result in temporary access restrictions along public roadways throughout the project area.
Operation and Maintenance
No changes in operation and maintenance characteristics would occur under the Modified Project as compared to the Original Project. As with the Original Project, dewatering at the ATF site would not be necessary following the completion of construction activities under the Modified Project because the ATF structures would be designed to resist uplift from buoyancy forces and prevent seepage in or out of the structures.
Decision Not to Prepare Subsequent EIR
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 21
3 Decision Not to Prepare Subsequent EIR
As outlined in Section 15164 (Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall prepare an Addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
As discussed in the impact analysis below, the environmental impacts of the Modified Project are substantially similar to those analyzed in the certified EIR for the Original Project. The modifications between the Original Project and the Modified Project would not introduce new significant environmental impacts or increase the severity of significant environmental impacts beyond those which have already been identified and characterized in the certified EIR. None of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred or would occur as a result of the Modified Project. Therefore, this Addendum to the certified EIR is consistent with CEQA, and this Addendum is the appropriate level of environmental documentation to provide under CEQA. This Addendum along with the certified EIR will be considered by the City’s decision-making body in making a decision on the Modified Project.
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
22 This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 23
4 Environmental Checklist and Impacts of
the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
This Addendum evaluates potential environmental impacts that could result from Modified Project.
The existing environmental conditions in the Central Coast Blue project area are substantially the same under present conditions as described in the certified EIR. The analysis below provides updates where necessary to characterize potential impacts associated with the Modified Project.
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides a checklist of environmental issues areas that are suggested as the issue areas that should be assessed in CEQA analyses. The certified EIR included standalone chapters evaluating project impacts to 11 of the 20 current environmental issue areas included in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G as well as a chapter evaluating the project’s environmental justice impacts. The remaining nine environmental issues included in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G were briefly addressed in Section 4.12, Effects Found Not to Be Significant, of the certified EIR. In addition, the certified EIR included Section 5, Federal Cross-Cutting Environmental Regulations Evaluation, to assist in compliance with the federal environmental requirements of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which is administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). This Addendum mirrors the structure of the certified EIR to facilitate a comparative analysis of impacts.
Potential environmental impacts of the Modified Project are analyzed to determine whether impacts are consistent with the impact analysis provided in the certified EIR and whether additional mitigation measures are required to minimize or avoid new or substantially more severe significant impacts.
Where impacts are identified in the following analysis, existing applicable policies and regulations are also discussed, as relevant to the avoidance of potential impacts from the Modified Project.
No changes to construction and operation of the potential agricultural irrigation pipelines under Phase II of the Original Project are proposed under the Modified Project; therefore, environmental impacts associated with this project component would remain the same as those identified in the certified EIR and the same mitigation measures would be required. Mitigation measures that are only applicable to this project component (Mitigation Measures BIO-1[f] through BIO-1[k] and CR-2[d]) are not discussed or reproduced in this Addendum, and this project component is not discussed further in the following analysis.
4.1 Air Quality
This section provides a comparison of the construction and operational air quality impacts associated with the Original Project and Modified Project based on the current environmental and regulatory setting and criteria air pollutant emissions estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2022.1, and the Roadway Construction Emissions Model (RCEM), version 9.0.
These models are the current industry-standard for estimating air pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from land use development projects for the purposes of CEQA and are therefore appropriate to use in calculating emissions for the Modified Project, as compared to the CalEEMod, version 2016.3.2 model that was utilized in the certified EIR for the Original Project. (The current version of RCEM is the same as that utilized for calculating emissions for the Original Project.)
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
24 Current Environmental and Regulatory Setting
As with the Original Project, the Modified Project area is located in the San Luis Obispo County portion of the South Central Coast Air Basin, which is under the jurisdiction of the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLO County APCD). The federal and State Clean Air Acts mandate the control and reduction of certain air pollutants. Under these laws, the USEPA and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for “criteria pollutants” and other pollutants. Some pollutants are emitted directly from a source (e.g., vehicle tailpipe, exhaust stack of a factory) into the atmosphere, including carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds (VOC)/reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOX), particulate matter with a diameter of ten microns or less (PM10), particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less, sulfur dioxide, and lead. Other pollutants are created indirectly through chemical reactions in the atmosphere, such as ozone, which is created by atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions primarily between ROG and NOX. Secondary pollutants include oxidants, ozone, and sulfate and nitrate particulates (smog).6 As of January 2019 (the last date that San Luis Obispo County’s attainment status was updated), San Luis Obispo County is designated nonattainment for the 1-hour and 8-hour CAAQS for ozone and the 24-hour and annual CAAQS for PM10. In addition, eastern San Luis Obispo County is designated nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. However, the Modified Project area is located in the western portion of the county that is designated in attainment for this NAAQS (SLO County APCD 2019). Because of the county’s nonattainment designations, the SLO County APCD has prepared the 2001 Clean Air Plan (CAP), which contains a comprehensive set of control measures and a regulatory framework designed to reduce criteria air pollutants and precursors from both stationary and mobile sources (SLO County APCD 2001).
Impact Analysis
Methodology
To compare the construction air quality impacts of the Original Project and the Modified Project for the purposes of this Addendum, air pollutant emissions generated by construction of the Modified Project were estimated using CalEEMod version 2022.1 and RCEM, version 9.0. No changes to operational characteristics related to air pollutant emissions would occur under the Modified Project as compared to the Original Project; therefore, no quantitative operational emissions modeling was completed.7 The modeling of construction emissions under the Modified Project relied on similar assumptions to those in the certified EIR with the following modifications:
General
During Phase II of construction, approximately 900 linear feet of pipeline would be installed (an increase of approximately 860 linear feet as compared to the Original Project).
6 CARB defines VOC and ROG similarly as, “any compound of carbon excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate,” with the exception that VOC are compounds that participate in atmospheric photochemical reactions. For the purposes of this analysis, ROG and VOC are considered comparable in terms of mass emissions, and the term ROG is used in this Addendum.
7 The minor increase of 0.1 mgd of initial and final production capacity at the ATF would not result in a change in electricity consumption under the Modified Project because the ATF would still treat the same volume of secondary effluent flows from the Pismo Beach and SSLOCSD WWTPs as under the Original Project. In addition, CalEEMod does not calculate or attribute emissions of criteria pollutants from electricity generation to individual projects because fossil fuel power plants are existing stationary sources permitted by air districts and/or the USEPA, and they are subject to local, state and federal control measures. Criteria pollutant emissions from power plants are associated with the power plants themselves, and not individual projects or electricity users.
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 25
Project construction would begin as early as January 2024 (instead of January 2021 as under the Original Project)8
Approximately 10 construction workers would be at each construction site per day with the exception of the ATF complex at which approximately 25 construction workers per day would be required (an increase of 15 construction workers at the ATF complex location as compared to the Original Project).
Injection, Monitoring, and Production Wells
Seven injection wells, 11 monitoring wells, and one production well would be constructed, which represents an increase of one injection well and two monitoring wells as compared to the Original Project.9
Approximately 93 CY of soil per injection and production well would be excavated and exported during well drilling activities (i.e., a total of 651 CY, which is an increase of 98 CY as compared to the Original Project).10
Well installation activities (including drilling and equipping) would occur over the course of approximately six months for each injection/production/monitoring well, which is approximately one month longer than under the Original Project. Each monitoring well would require a three-week period of well drilling activities during which two weeks of construction activities would occur for 24 hours a day, which constitutes a reduction of approximately 2.5 weeks in the duration of 24-hour construction activities as compared to the Original Project.
Produced groundwater would be disposed of via one of several methods, including connections to the City’s existing ocean outfall pipeline that runs under State Route 1, temporary storage and timed release to the sanitary or storm sewer, or trucking up to one mile for percolation into a stormwater retention basin, which would require approximately 1,250 truck trips per injection and production well, approximately 60 truck trips per monitoring well, and approximately 72 truck trips per day on average for the ATF complex. Pipelines
Up to 30,000 linear feet of pipelines would be installed (an increase of approximately 12,000 linear feet as compared to the Original Project), and pipeline trenches would be up to approximately three feet in width and six feet in depth (i.e., a total of 90,000 square feet of surface area would be disturbed with a total trench volume of 540,000 cubic feet, which would be an increase of 36,000 square feet of surface area and 216,000 cubic feet of trench volume as compared to the Original Project).
Demolition of approximately 1,667 CY of pavement would be required, which would be an increase of 667 CY as compared to the Original Project.11
8 The exact start date of project construction is unknown at this time. However, the assumption that construction will commence in January 2024 is a conservative assumption because construction equipment is anticipated to become more efficient and generate fewer air pollutant and GHG emissions over time. Therefore, assuming the use of the least-efficient equipment possible results in reasonable worst-case construction emissions.
9 As discussed in Section 2, Project Description, construction of MW-3A/3B was determined by the City of Pismo Beach to be categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15306. Therefore, the construction impacts of MW-3A/3B is not included in this analysis.
However, due to land use permitting constraints, this analysis assumes that a new IW-4 Alternate is constructed instead of re-purposing the existing pilot groundwater well for operational use. 10 When soil is excavated, it typically swells to a greater volume because it is no longer compressed and has more air pockets than in its natural state. The percentage increase in volume is known as the swell factor. This analysis conservatively assumes a swell factor of 1.5. 11 3 feet in trench width * 30,000 linear feet in trench length * 0.5 feet in depth (asphalt and road base).
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
26 Pipeline construction activities would occur over the course of approximately 18 months, which is approximately 12 months longer as compared to the Original Project. Approximately 30,000 CY of soil would be exported, which would be an increase of approximately 12,000 CY as compared to the Original Project.12 Approximately 19,980 CY of soil would be imported, which would be an increase of approximately 8,111 CY as compared to the Original Project.13 ATF Complex
Construction activities under Phase I for the ATF complex would require approximately 24 months to complete, which would be approximately 10 months longer as compared to the Original Project.
Consistency with the 2001 Clean Air Plan
ORIGINAL CENTRAL COAST BLUE PROJECT
The certified EIR determined the Original Project would be consistent with the SLO County APCD’s 2001 CAP because the Original Project does not fall within the categories of programs and projects with the potential to induce population growth and/or generate high vehicle miles traveled and because none of the transportation control measures and land use planning strategies contained in the 2001 CAP are applicable to the Original Project. Therefore, the certified EIR determined no impacts related to consistency with the 2001 CAP would occur.
MODIFIED CENTRAL COAST BLUE PROJECT
The Modified Project is similar in nature to the Original Project and would not result in changes to the operational characteristics of the Original Project such that population growth or additional vehicle miles traveled would be induced. In addition, the transportation control measures and land use planning strategies contained in the 2001 CAP remain inapplicable to the Modified Project. Therefore, the Modified Project would be consistent with the 2001 CAP, and no impact would occur. As such, the Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts related to consistency with the 2001 CAP and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
Construction Emissions
ORIGINAL CENTRAL COAST BLUE PROJECT
The certified EIR determined air quality impacts resulting from construction activities for the Original Project would be significant. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-2(a) and AQ- 2(b) outlined in Section 4.1, Air Quality, of the certified EIR, construction-related air quality impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
12 3 feet in trench width * 30,000 linear feet in trench length * 6 feet in depth * 1.5 swell factor. This calculation conservatively assumes the maximum quantity of export by assuming that all pipelines would be 24 inches in diameter. In reality, pipeline diameters would range from 6 to 24 inches; therefore, it is likely that less soil export would be required. 13 540,000 cubic feet of excavated trench – (30,000 linear feet in pipeline length * π * (0.25 feet of pipeline radius)2). This calculation conservatively assumes the maximum quantity of import by assuming all pipelines would be 6 inches in diameter and would be placed in a trench large enough to accommodate a 24-inch pipeline. In reality, smaller pipelines would be placed in narrower and shallower trenches than larger pipelines; therefore, it is likely that less soil import would be required.
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 27
MODIFIED CENTRAL COAST BLUE PROJECT
As with the Original Project, construction of the Modified Project would generate temporary emissions of air pollutants. Ozone precursors (NOX and ROG) as well as diesel particulate matter (DPM) would be emitted by the operation of construction equipment, while fugitive dust would be emitted by activities that disturb the soil, such as grading, excavation, and trenching. As described in Section 2, Background and Project Description, construction activities would occur in two phases.
Phase I would consist of the construction of four injection wells (IW-1, IW-2A, IW-3, and IW-4 Alternate or IW-5A), 11 monitoring wells, one production well, the pipelines conveying secondary treated effluent from the Pismo Beach WWTP to the ATF, the concentrate pipeline, the purified water distribution pipelines, and the ATF complex. Phase II would include construction of the remaining three injection wells (IW-2B, IW-4 Alternate or IW-5A, and IW-5B), purified water pipelines to connect the new wells to the existing purified water distribution system, the pipeline and pump station conveying secondary treated effluent from the SSLOCSD WWTP to the ATF, the agricultural irrigation pipelines, and expansion upgrades to the ATF complex. (Although it would not be utilized in Phase II, the pipeline from the SSLOCSD WWTP to the ATF could be constructed in Phase I to take advantage of cost efficiencies of installing two pipelines in parallel [with the purified water pipeline from the AWPF to IW-5A] and to minimize local impacts from construction. This analysis conservatively assumes construction of this pipeline during Phase I for the purpose of estimating reasonable, worst- case impacts.)
Estimated maximum daily and quarterly emissions during Phase I of construction for the Modified Project are summarized in Table 2 and Table 3. Unlike the Original Project, construction emissions during Phase I of the Modified Project would not exceed the SLO County APCD daily threshold for ROG + NOX (Table 2). Similar to the Original Project, construction emissions during Phase I of the Modified Project would exceed the SLO County APCD quarterly Tier 1 threshold for ROG + NOX (Table 3). Therefore, as with the Original Project, construction-related air pollutant emissions from Phase I of construction would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures AQ-2(a) and AQ-2(b) would continue to apply to construction activities for the Modified Project and would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. As such, the Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts from criteria air pollutant emissions during Phase I of construction and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
Table 2 Phase I Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Air Pollutant Emissions – Modified Project
Project Component
Maximum Daily Emissions
(lbs/day) of ROG + NOX –
Modified Project
Maximum Daily Emissions
(lbs/day) of ROG + NOX –
Original Project1
Net Change in Maximum
Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
of ROG + NOX
Injection/Monitoring/
Production Wells2
33.52 86.52 (53.00)
Water Distribution and
Sewer Pipelines
20.92 32.06 (11.14)
ATF Complex 41.50 72.44 (30.94)
Total 95.94 191.02 (95.08)
SLO County APCD Daily
Threshold
137 137 n/a
Threshold Exceeded? No Yes n/a
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
28 Project Component
Maximum Daily Emissions
(lbs/day) of ROG + NOX –
Modified Project
Maximum Daily Emissions
(lbs/day) of ROG + NOX –
Original Project1
Net Change in Maximum
Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
of ROG + NOX
( ) indicates a negative number
lbs = pounds; ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = nitrogen oxides; SLO County APCD = San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
Notes: All emissions modeling was completed using CalEEMod and RCEM. See Appendix A for updated modeling results. Some numbers may not add up due to rounding. Emission data from CalEEMod is pulled from “mitigated” results, which account for compliance with regulations (including SLO County APCD Rule 433) and project design features. 1 Source: Table 4.1-6 of the certified EIR
2 Emissions from installation of one injection/production well were modeled, then multiplied by two to account for simultaneous installation of two wells at any given time during Phase I. (This approach is conservative because installation of one monitoring well installation would generate fewer emissions than installation of one injection/production well.) See Appendix A for updated calculations.
Table 3 Phase I Estimated Maximum Quarterly Construction Air Pollutant Emissions – Modified Project
Project Component
ROG + NOX
(tons/quarter)
DPM
(tons/quarter)1
Dust
(tons/quarter)2
Injection/Monitoring/Production Wells3, 4 0.90 0.04 0.08 Water Distribution and Sewer Pipelines5 0.69 0.03 0.01
ATF Complex1 1.46 0.06 0.28
Total Maximum Quarterly Emissions – Modified Project 3.05 0.13 0.37 Total Maximum Quarterly Emissions – Original Project6 3.98 0.12 0.06 Net Change in Total Maximum Quarterly Emissions (0.93) 0.01 0.31 SLO County APCD Quarterly Tier 1 Threshold 2.5 0.13 2.5 Threshold Exceeded? Yes No No
SLO County APCD Quarterly Tier 2 Threshold 6.3 0.32 None Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A
( ) indicates a negative number
ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = nitrogen oxides; DPM = diesel particulate matter; SLO County APCD = San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District; N/A = not applicable; PM10 = particulate matter measuring 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter measuring 2.5 microns or less in diameter
Notes: All emissions modeling was completed using CalEEMod and RCEM. See Appendix A for updated modeling results. Some numbers may not add up due to rounding. Emission data from CalEEMod is pulled from “mitigated” results, which account for compliance with regulations (including SLO County APCD Rule 433) and project design features. 1 DPM estimates were derived from the “PM10 Exhaust” outputs, which is a conservative assumption given that 90 percent of DPM is a subset of PM2.5 (CARB 2022).
2 Dust is equal to fugitive PM10 reported by CalEEMod and RCEM. 3 CalEEMod calculates quarterly emissions of ROG+NOX but does not calculate quarterly emissions for DPM and dust; therefore, maximum annual construction emissions of DPM and dust were divided by four to estimate maximum quarterly emissions. 4 Emissions from installation of one injection/production well were modeled, then multiplied by two to account for simultaneous installation of two wells during any given quarter of Phase I. (This approach is conservative because installation of one monitoring well installation would generate fewer emissions than installation of one injection/production well.) 5 Maximum quarterly emissions were calculated using maximum daily emissions from the highest emissions-generating phase. See Appendix A for updated calculations.
6 Source: Table 4.1-7 of the certified EIR
Estimated maximum daily and quarterly emissions during Phase II of construction of the Modified Project are summarized in Table 4 and Table 5. Similar to the Original Project, construction emissions
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 29
during Phase II of the Modified Project would not exceed the SLO County APCD daily threshold for ROG + NOX but would exceed the quarterly Tier 1 threshold for ROG + NOX. Therefore, as with the Original Project, construction-related air pollutant emissions from Phase II of construction of the Modified Project would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-2(a) and AQ-2(b) would continue to apply to construction activities for the Modified Project and would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. As such, the Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts from criteria air pollutant emissions during Phase II of construction and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
Table 4 Phase II Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Air Pollutant Emissions – Modified Project
Project Component
Maximum Daily Emissions
(lbs/day) of ROG + NOX –
Modified Project
Maximum Daily Emissions
(lbs/day) of ROG + NOX –
Original Project1
Net Change in Maximum
Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
of ROG + NOX
Injection/Monitoring Wells2 33.52 86.52 (53.00)
Additional Water
Distribution Pipelines3
20.70 0 20.70
Agricultural Irrigation
Pipelines1, 4
31.12 31.12 0
Total 85.34 117.64 (32.30)
SLO County APCD Daily
Threshold
137 137 n/a
Threshold Exceeded? No No n/a
( ) indicates a negative number
lbs = pounds; ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = nitrogen oxides; SLO County APCD = San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
Notes: All emissions modeling was completed using CalEEMod and RCEM. See Appendix A for updated modeling results. Some numbers may not add up due to rounding. Emission data from CalEEMod is pulled from “mitigated” results, which account for compliance with regulations (including SLO County APCD Rule 433) and project design features. 1 Source: Table 4.1-8 of the certified EIR
2 Emissions from installation of one injection well were modeled, then multiplied by two to account for simultaneous installation of two wells under Phase II. (This approach is conservative because installation of one monitoring well installation would generate fewer emissions than installation of one injection/production well.) Phase II of construction would also include expansion upgrades at the ATF complex; however, emissions from these activities were not modeled because upgrades would primarily be completed using small hand tools and not large emission-generating construction equipment. 3 Under the Original Project, emissions from construction of the additional 40 feet of pipelines under Phase II were assumed to be within the emissions estimate for the injection wells because pipeline construction would be completed with similar equipment and within the same construction schedule assumed for the injection wells. Therefore, no separate emissions estimate was quantified for the additional pipelines. However, because the Modified Project would result in construction of approximately 900 feet of additional pipelines, these emissions were quantified separately due to the more intensive nature of construction activities for this component. 4 The Modified Project would not result in changes in the characteristics of the agricultural irrigation pipelines under the Original Project; therefore, emissions for this component would remain the same as those estimated for the Original Project.
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
30 Table 5 Phase II Estimated Maximum Quarterly Construction Air Pollutant Emissions – Modified Project
Project Component
ROG + NOX
(tons/quarter)
DPM
(tons/quarter)1
Dust
(tons/quarter)2
Injection/Monitoring Wells3, 4 0.90 0.04 0.08
Additional Water Distribution Pipelines5 0.68 0.03 0.01 Agricultural Irrigation Pipelines6 1.03 0.04 0.01
Total Maximum Quarterly Emissions – Modified Project 2.61 0.12 0.06 Total Maximum Quarterly Emissions – Original Project7 2.93 0.07 0.03 Net Change in Total Maximum Quarterly Emissions (0.32) 0.04 0.07 SLO County APCD Quarterly Tier 1 Threshold 2.5 0.13 2.5 Threshold Exceeded? Yes No No
SLO County APCD Quarterly Tier 2 Threshold 6.3 0.32 None Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A
( ) indicates a negative number
ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = nitrogen oxides; DPM = diesel particulate matter; SLO County APCD = San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District; N/A = not applicable; PM10 = particulate matter measuring 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter measuring 2.5 microns or less in diameter
Notes: All emissions modeling was completed using CalEEMod and RCEM. See Appendix A for updated modeling results. Some numbers may not add up due to rounding. Emission data from CalEEMod is pulled from “mitigated” results, which account for compliance with regulations (including SLO County APCD Rule 433) and project design features. 1 DPM estimates were derived from the “PM10 Exhaust” outputs, which is a conservative assumption given that 90 percent of DPM is a subset of PM2.5 (CARB 2022).
2 Dust is equal to fugitive PM10 reported by CalEEMod and RCEM. 3 CalEEMod calculates quarterly emissions of ROG+NOX but does not calculate quarterly emissions for DPM and dust; therefore, maximum annual construction emissions of DPM and dust were divided by the number of quarters undergoing construction in a year to estimate maximum quarterly emissions.
4 Emissions from installation of one injection well were modeled, then multiplied by two to account for simultaneous installation of two wells during any given quarter of Phase II. (This approach is conservative because installation of one monitoring well installation would generate fewer emissions than installation of one injection/production well.) Phase II of construction would also include expansion upgrades at the ATF complex; however, emissions from these activities were not modeled because upgrades would primarily be completed using small hand tools and not large emission-generating construction equipment. 5 Under the Original Project, emissions from construction of the additional 40 feet of pipelines under Phase II were assumed to be within the emissions estimate for the injection wells because pipeline construction would be completed with similar equipment and within the same construction schedule assumed for the injection wells. Therefore, no separate emissions estimate was quantified for the additional pipelines. However, because the Modified Project would result in construction of approximately 900 feet of additional pipelines, these emissions were quantified separately due to the more intensive nature of construction activities for this component. 6 Emissions estimates are sourced from Table 4.1-9 of the certified EIR because the Modified Project would not result in changes in the characteristics of the agricultural irrigation pipelines under the Original Project. Therefore, emissions for this component would remain the same as those estimated for the Original Project.
7 Source: Table 4.1-9 of the certified EIR
Operational Emissions
ORIGINAL CENTRAL COAST BLUE PROJECT
The certified EIR for the Original Project determined operational air quality impacts would be less than significant because operational emissions would not exceed SLO County APCD thresholds.
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 31
MODIFIED CENTRAL COAST BLUE PROJECT
The Modified Project would not result in changes to the operational characteristics of the Original Project. Operational air pollutant emissions would remain the same as those estimated for the Original Project in Table 4.1-13 of the certified EIR and would not exceed SLO County APCD thresholds, and the operational air quality impacts of the Modified Project would remain less than significant. The Modified Project thus would not result in new significant impacts associated with operational air pollutant emissions and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
Toxic Air Contaminants
ORIGINAL CENTRAL COAST BLUE PROJECT
The certified EIR for the Original Project determined toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions impacts resulting from construction and operation of the Original Project would be less than significant because emissions of DPM would not exceed SLO County APCD thresholds.
MODIFIED CENTRAL COAST BLUE PROJECT
As shown in Table 3 and Table 5, the Modified Project would not generate DPM emissions during construction activities in excess of SLO County APCD thresholds as compared to the Original Project.
In addition, the Modified Project would not result in changes to the operational characteristics of the Original Project and thus would not result in changes to estimated operational TAC emissions. The Modified Project would also continue to be subject to compliance with SLO County APCD Rule 219 for the emergency backup diesel generator to be located at the ATF complex. Therefore, the Modified Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC emissions, and impacts would be less than significant. The Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts associated with TAC emissions and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
Naturally-Occurring Asbestos
ORIGINAL CENTRAL COAST BLUE PROJECT
The certified EIR for the Original Project determined impacts resulting from naturally-occurring asbestos would be less than significant because the Original Project area is not located in an area that is known to contain naturally-occurring asbestos.
MODIFIED CENTRAL COAST BLUE PROJECT
The Modified Project area would remain largely the same as the Original Project area with the addition of an approximately 0.5-acre area immediately adjacent to the southwestern boundary of the Original Project area. As with the Original Project, the Modified Project area is not located in an area that is known to contain naturally-occurring asbestos, and construction activities, including grading, would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of naturally-occurring asbestos (SLO County APCD 2018). As a result, impacts would be less than significant. The Modified Project would thus not result in new significant impacts associated with naturally-occurring asbestos and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
32 Odors
ORIGINAL CENTRAL COAST BLUE PROJECT
The certified EIR determined the Original Project would not generate odorous emissions adversely affecting a substantial number of people because odors emitted during construction would be limited and temporary and project operation would not include processes or byproducts known to generate nuisance odors.
MODIFIED CENTRAL COAST BLUE PROJECT
The Modified Project would result in similar types of construction activities as the Original Project and would result in no changes to the operational characteristics of the Original Project. Therefore, the Modified Project would similarly have no potential to generate odorous emissions adversely affecting a substantial number of people during construction or operation. Impacts related to odorous emissions would be less than significant during construction, and no impacts related to odorous emissions would occur during operation. As such, Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts related to odors and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new significant or substantially more severe effects would occur related to air quality, and no new mitigation measures are necessary. Impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated from the certified EIR.
As with the Original Project, Mitigation Measures AQ-2(a) and AQ-2(b) included in Section 4.1, Air Quality, of the certified EIR would be required for the Modified Project to reduce potential impacts related to air quality to a less-than-significant level with minor modifications to Mitigation Measure AQ-2(b) as shown in strikeout/underline format below.
AQ-2(a) Standard Control Measures for Construction Equipment.
The following standard mitigation measures shall be implemented during Phases I and II of construction activities to reduce construction-related emissions of NOX and ROG:
Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer’s specifications; Fuel all off-road and portable diesel-powered equipment with CARB-certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for use off-road);
Use diesel construction equipment meeting the CARB’s Tier 2 certified engines or cleaner off-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State Off-Road Regulation; Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the CARB’s 2007 or cleaner certification standard for on-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State On-Road Regulation; Construction or trucking companies with fleets that do not have engines in their fleet that meet the engine standards identified in the above two measures (e.g., captive or NOX exempt area fleets) may be eligible by proving alternative compliance; All on- and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle for more than five minutes in accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 13, Section 2485 and Section 2449(d)(3) of the CARB’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel Regulation. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and on job sites to remind drivers and operators of the five-minute idling limit;
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 33
Electric-powered equipment shall be used when feasible; Gasoline-powered equipment shall be substituted in place of diesel-powered equipment, where feasible; and
Alternatively fueled construction equipment shall be used on site where feasible, such as compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, propane, or biodiesel.
AQ-2(b) Best Available Control Technology for Construction Equipment The following Best Available Control Technology for diesel-fueled construction equipment shall be implemented during Phases I and II of construction activities to reduce construction-related emissions of NOX and ROG:
All equipment used during the building construction phase of the ATF complex during Phase I and the water distribution and agricultural irrigation pipelines during Phase II shall be equipped with minimum Tier 3 certified engines, and air compressors, drill rigs, and generators used during injection/monitoring/production well construction shall be equipped with minimum Tier 4 Final certified engines;
Repower older off-road equipment with Tier 3 and Tier 4 engines where feasible; Utilize heavy-duty trucks meeting the standards of the CARB’s Truck and Bus Regulation for on- road heavy-duty diesel engines, which requires nearly all trucks to have 2010 or newer model year engines; and
Install California Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies on construction equipment. Examples include, but are not limited to, diesel particulate filter systems, Purifilter Engine Control Systems, diesel retrofit systems, and Sootfilter systems.
According to the SLO County APCD (2012) CEQA Air Quality Handbook, for projects with estimated construction emissions expected to exceed the SLO County APCD daily thresholds of significance and the SLO County APCD quarterly Tier 1 thresholds of significance, implementation of standard and Best Available Control Technology measures would reduce potential air quality impacts to a less-than- significant level. These measures are required for both phases of construction activities. As shown in Table 6 and Table 7, implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-2(a) and AQ-2(b) would reduce construction-related emissions of ROG + NOX below the SLO County APCD quarterly thresholds during both Phases I and II of the Modified Project. As a result, implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ- 2(a) and AQ-2(b) would reduce construction-related air quality impacts during Phases I and II of construction under the Modified Project to a less-than-significant level. As such, the Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts from criteria air pollutant emissions during construction and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
34 Table 6 Mitigated Phase I Maximum Quarterly Construction Air Pollutant Emissions – Modified Project
Project Component
ROG + NOX
(tons/quarter)
DPM
(tons/quarter)1
Dust
(tons/quarter)2
Injection/Monitoring/Production Wells3, 4, 0.90 0.04 0.08 Water Distribution and Sewer Pipelines5 0.69 0.03 0.01
ATF Complex3, 6 0.56 0.01 0.28
Total Maximum Quarterly Emissions 2.15 0.08 0.37
SLO County APCD Quarterly Tier 1 Threshold 2.5 0.13 2.5 Threshold Exceeded? No No No
SLO County APCD Quarterly Tier 2 Threshold 6.3 0.32 None Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A
ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = nitrogen oxides; DPM = diesel particulate matter; SLO County APCD = San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District; N/A = not applicable; PM10 = particulate matter measuring 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter measuring 2.5 microns or less in diameter
Notes: All emissions modeling was completed using CalEEMod and RCEM. See Appendix A for updated modeling results. Some numbers may not add up due to rounding. Emission data is pulled from “mitigated” results, which account for compliance with regulations (including SLO County APCD Rule 433) and project design features. 1 DPM estimates were derived from the “PM10 Exhaust” outputs, which is a conservative assumption given that 90 percent of DPM is a subset of PM2.5 (CARB 2022).
2 Dust is equal to fugitive PM10 reported by CalEEMod and RCEM. 3 CalEEMod calculates quarterly emissions of ROG+NOX but does not calculate quarterly emissions for DPM and dust; therefore, maximum annual construction emissions of DPM and dust were divided by four to estimate maximum quarterly emissions. 4 Emissions from installation of one injection/production/monitoring well were modeled, then multiplied by two to account for simultaneous installation of two wells during any given quarter of Phase I. (This approach is conservative because installation of one monitoring well installation would generate fewer emissions than installation of one injection/production well.) 5 Maximum quarterly emissions were calculated using maximum daily emissions from the highest emissions-generating phase. See Appendix A for updated calculations.
6 Assumes use of all equipment with Tier 4 Final certified engines.
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 35
Table 7 Mitigated Phase II Maximum Quarterly Construction Air Pollutant Emissions – Modified Project
Project Components
ROG + NOX
(tons/quarter)
DPM
(tons/quarter)1
Dust2
(tons/quarter)
Injection Wells3, 4 0.90 0.04 0.08
Additional Water Distribution Pipelines5, 6 0.28 0.01 0.01 Agricultural Irrigation Pipelines5, 6 0.40 0.01 0.01
Total Maximum Quarterly Emissions 1.58 0.06 0.10
SLO County APCD Quarterly Tier 1 Threshold 2.5 0.13 2.5 Threshold Exceeded? No No No
SLO County APCD Quarterly Tier 2 Threshold 6.3 0.32 None Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A
ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = nitrogen oxides; DPM = diesel particulate matter; SLO County APCD = San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District; N/A = not applicable; PM10 = particulate matter measuring 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter measuring 2.5 microns or less in diameter
Notes: All emissions modeling was completed using CalEEMod. See Appendix A for modeling results. Some numbers may not add up due to rounding. Emission data from CalEEMod is pulled from “mitigated” results, which account for compliance with regulations (including SLO County APCD Rule 433) and project design features. 1 DPM estimates were derived from the “PM10 Exhaust” outputs, which is a conservative assumption given that 90 percent of DPM is a subset of PM2.5 (CARB 2022).
2 Dust is equal to fugitive PM10 reported by CalEEMod and RCEM. 3 CalEEMod calculates quarterly emissions of ROG+NOX but does not calculate quarterly emissions for DPM and dust; therefore, maximum annual construction emissions of DPM and dust were divided by the number of quarters undergoing construction in a year to estimate maximum quarterly emissions.
4 Emissions from installation of one injection well were modeled, then multiplied by two to account for simultaneous installation of two wells in any given quarter of Phase II. (This approach is conservative because installation of one monitoring well installation would generate fewer emissions than installation of one injection/production well.) Phase II of construction would also include expansion upgrades at the ATF complex; however, emissions from these activities were not modeled because upgrades would primarily be completed using small hand tools and not large emission-generating construction equipment. 5 Assumes use of all equipment with Tier 4 Final certified engines. 6 Maximum quarterly emissions were calculated using maximum daily emissions from the highest emissions-generating phase. See Appendix A for updated calculations.
Conclusion
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation (Same as Certified EIR)
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
36 4.2 Biological Resources
Impact Analysis
Original Central Coast Blue Project
The certified EIR determined the Original Project would result in direct and indirect impacts to special status species, if present during construction and operation. The certified EIR identified five special status species to which the Original Project would potentially result in significant impacts – California red legged frog (Rana draytonii; CRLF), southwestern pond turtle (Emys marmorata), monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus pop. 1), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), and tri-colored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor). However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) through BIO-1(k) outlined in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of the certified EIR, impacts to special status species would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Five other special status species – black-flowered figwort (Scrophularia atrata), California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra), southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis), steelhead – south-central California coast distinction population segment (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) - were also evaluated in the certified EIR. However, the certified EIR concluded that project components with known locations (i.e., injection and monitoring wells, pipelines, ATF complex, and reverse osmosis concentrate discharge) and groundwater extraction would result in less-than-significant impacts to these species.
The certified EIR determined construction activities under the Original Project would directly and indirectly impact arroyo willow riparian vegetation communities, which are considered environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA), associated with Arroyo Grande Creek through habitat removal. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 outlined in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of the certified EIR, impacts related to sensitive vegetation communities and riparian habitat would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
The certified EIR determined the Original Project would result in impacts to state and federally protected wetlands during construction activities. The certified EIR determined that the Original Project would potentially impact state and federally protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, or hydrological interruption. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-3(a) to BIO-3(c) outlined in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of the certified EIR, impacts related to state and federally protected wetlands would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
The certified EIR determined the project would result in impacts to biological resources protected by local policies/ordinances, specifically related to the removal of native trees in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, which are protected by San Luis Obispo County Code Sections 23.05.060, 23.05.062, and 23.05.060. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5 outlined in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of the certified EIR, impacts related to local policies/ordinances protecting biological resources would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
The certified EIR determined the project would not interfere substantially with wildlife movement, migratory wildlife corridors, or native wildlife nursery sites and would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No impacts related to these topics would occur.
Modified Central Coast Blue Project
The following analysis based on an updated Biological Resources Assessment prepared for the Modified Project in 2023 (2023 BRA) and a Jurisdictional Delineation, which are included in
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 37
Appendices B and C of this Addendum, respectively (Rincon Consultants, Inc. [Rincon] 2023a and 2023b).
SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES
The certified EIR identified one non-listed special status plant species - black-flowered figwort (California Rare Plant Rank [CRPR] 1B.2) - with the potential to occur near the locations of Original Project components. The 2023 BRA identified 11 special status plant species that have the potential to occur within the Modified Project area. Of these, six special status plant species have a low potential to occur, four species have a moderate potential to occur, and one species is present within the Study Area. The three non-listed special status plant species with a low potential to occur are omitted from further discussion because these species are not likely to occur within the Modified Project site and, even if present, population-wide impacts are not expected to occur. In addition, one special status plant species, Monterey cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa; CRPR 1B.2), was observed within the Modified Project site during the field reconnaissance survey. This species is native to the Monterey Peninsula but has been widely planted outside of its native range as a landscape tree. Within the Modified Project site, all occurrences of this species were located along public roadways as landscape trees. Monterey cypress trees are therefore omitted from further discussion because they are not native to the region, and all occurrences within the Modified Project site are planted landscape trees. Listed special status plant species with a low potential to occur, and all special status plant species with a moderate potential to occur are discussed further below.
The 2023 BRA determined the following three listed special status plant species have low potential to occur within the Modified Project site:
Marsh sandwort (Arenaria paludicola; federally endangered, State endangered, CRPR 1B.1) La Graciosa thistle (Cirsium scariosum var. loncholepis; federally endangered, State threatened, CRPR 1B.1)
Beach spectaclepod (Dithyrea maritima; State threatened, CRPR 1B.1) The 2023 BRA determined the following four non-listed special status plant species have moderate potential to occur within the Modified Project site:
Blochman’s leafy daisy (Blochman’s leafy daisy; CRPR 1B.2) Crisp monardella (Monardella undulata ssp. Crispa; CRPR 1B.2) San Luis Obispo monardella (Monardella undulata ssp. Undulata; CRPR 1B.2) Black-flowered figwort (CRPR 1B.2)
Although additional special status plant species have potential to occur within or near the Modified Project area, the Modified Project would not result in significant direct or indirect impacts to these species because, similar to the Original Project, the majority of Modified Project impacts would occur on developed or landscaped areas outside the limits of native habitats and potentially suitable marsh and coastal scrub habitats for La Graciosa thistle and marsh sandwort would be avoided during construction. As with the Original Project, the footprint of the injection wells, monitoring wells, and pipelines associated with the Modified Project would be relatively small, and the impacts associated with construction would be primarily temporary in nature in developed/landscaped land cover.
Furthermore, injection wells would be located along edges of larger habitat blocks potentially suitable for these species. Therefore, only a relatively small number of each of these special status plant species, if any, would be impacted in comparison to the population that could inhabit the remaining
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
38 regionally occurring suitable habitat. As a result, as with the Original Project, construction of the Modified Project would not be expected to remove or degrade habitat for special status plant species to such an extent as to cause a downward trend in the species range-wide or regional/local populations or cause a restriction in the species range that would lead to a federal or state listing.
Therefore, impacts to special status plant species under the Modified Project would be less than significant. As such, the Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts related to special status species and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
SPECIAL STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES
The certified EIR identified the following nine special status animal species with potential to occur within the Original Project site:
CRLF (federally threatened; California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] Species of Special Concern [SSC])
Southwestern pond turtle (SSC)
Monarch butterfly-California overwintering population (federal candidate) White-tailed kite (State Fully Protected)
Tri-colored blackbird (State threatened; SSC)
California legless lizard (SSC)
Southern sea otter (federally threatened; SSC)
Steelhead-south-central California coast distinction population segment (federally threatened) Tidewater goby (federally endangered; SSC)
The 2023 BRA did not identify new special status animal species as having potential to occur within the Modified Project site (Appendix B).
Similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would potentially result in significant direct and indirect impacts to individuals of CRLF as well as direct impacts to CRLF habitat during construction and ground-disturbing maintenance activities associated with IW-5A, IW-5B, MW-5A/5B/5C, the pump station at the SSLOCSD WWTP, and pipeline locations adjacent to Arroyo Grande Creek (Appendix B). Therefore, as with the Original Project, impacts to CRLF would be potentially significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) and BIO-1(b) would continue to apply to the Modified Project and would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would have the potential to result in impacts to southwestern pond turtles through harassment, injury, and mortality of individuals; destruction of nest sites; general habitat disturbance or removal and disruption of foraging or breeding activities that could impact the reproductive success of the local and regional population, specifically at the locations of IW-5A, IW-5B, MW-5A/5B/5C, and the pump station at the SSLOCSD WWTP adjacent to Arroyo Grande Creek as well as along portions of the pipeline alignments within 50 feet of Arroyo Grande Creek (Appendix B). Therefore, as with the Original Project, impacts to southwestern pond turtle under the Modified Project would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1(c) would continue to apply to the Modified Project and would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.
The California overwintering population of monarch butterfly has a moderate potential to occur within the Modified Project site as transient individuals due to the proximity of numerous overwintering sites and presence of potential nectar sources within landscaped areas. The eucalyptus
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 39
grove located within the ATF complex location could serve as potential monarch overwintering habitat. However, as discussed in in the 2023 BRA, the last record of overwintering monarchs at this site is from 1989, and no overwintering monarchs were observed at this site during the appropriately- timed field reconnaissance survey, although they were present at other nearby known overwintering sites, which indicates the species does not currently utilize the eucalyptus grove within the ATF complex location for overwintering. As such, this site would not currently be considered an ESHA in the context of the California Coastal Act, and no impacts to overwintering monarchs at this site would occur as a result of the proposed removal of this eucalyptus grove if removal occurs prior to the start of the next overwintering period in October 2023 (Appendix B). If removal of the eucalyptus grove occurs after the start of the next overwintering period in October 2023, conditions may change, and the area may be used as overwintering habitat by monarchs, in which case removal of the eucalyptus grove could result in direct impacts to monarch butterfly, such as injury/mortality and/or removal of overwintering habitat. In addition, potential indirect impacts to overwintering monarchs due to harassment could occur if they are present within the vicinity of the project during construction, though the likelihood would be low (Appendix B). Therefore, as with the Original Project, impacts to monarch butterfly under the Modified Project would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1(d) would continue to apply to the Modified Project and would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.
The Modified Project, like the Original Project, would potentially result in impacts to nesting birds, including the white-tailed kite, during construction activities. Impacts to tri-color blackbird under the Modified Project would not occur given the injection well, monitoring well, pump station, pipeline, and ATF complex locations and immediate surroundings only provide foraging habitat for the species.
Therefore, no direct impacts to tri-color blackbird nesting would occur. However, direct impacts to nesting birds of other species, including white-tailed kite, may occur due to removal or trimming of trees, shrubs, and other nesting substrates that may contain active nests. Indirect impacts to nesting birds may also occur during construction activities in the vicinity of an active nest resulting from distress to adults and disruption of nesting behavior due to construction noise that may lead to nest abandonment or failure (Appendix B). Therefore, as with the Original Project, impacts to nesting birds, including the white-tailed kite, would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1(e) would continue to apply to the Modified Project and would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project may result in direct and indirect impacts to California legless lizard (e.g., mortality, habitat disturbance or removal, disruption of foraging or breeding) during ground-disturbing construction and maintenance activities (e.g., grading, excavation, and trenching), specifically within suitable habitat that occurs within the ATF complex, IW-2A, IW-2B, IW-4 Alternate, MW-3C/3D, MW-4A/4B, MW-4C/4D, MW-5A/5B/5C, and some pipeline alignments). However, as with the Original Project, only a small number of northern California legless lizards, if any, would be directly impacted compared to the size of the regional population in native habitats. Based on these factors, impacts resulting from the Modified Project would not cause a downward trend in the species range-wide or regional/local populations or cause a restriction in the species range that would lead to a federal or state listing (Appendix B). Therefore, as with the Original Project, impacts to northern California legless lizard under the Modified Project would be less than significant.
As with the Original Project, the Modified Project would alter the volume and quality of water discharged through the existing ocean outfall, resulting in an incrementally higher concentration (but not volume or mass) of salinity and other constituents in the effluent. Southern sea otter and
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
40 steelhead have the potential to occur near this discharge point during migration. However, the ocean discharge would continue to be regulated by the SWRCB under the Pismo Beach and SSLOCSD WWTPs’ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, which include effluent limitations for protection of marine aquatic life. Furthermore, the pipeline outfall is not located within a kelp forest, which sea otters are dependent on. Similar to the Original Project, the change in water salinity output under the Modified Project is not expected to cause an impact to southern sea otter or steelhead given compliance with existing NPDES permit limitations (Appendix B). Therefore, as with the Original Project, impacts to southern sea otter and steelhead under the Modified Project would be less than significant.
As with the Original Project, the Modified Project would not result in impacts to tidewater goby given that suitable habitat for this species within Arroyo Grande Creek is separated from the locations of project components by an earthen levee and suitable habitat within Meadow Creek and Oceano Lagoon are isolated from the locations of project components due to existing roadways and development (Appendix B). Therefore, similar to the Original Project, no impacts to tidewater goby would occur under the Modified Project.
As with the Original Project, groundwater extraction during operation of the Modified Project may lower local alluvial groundwater levels around Arroyo Grande Creek, Arroyo Grande Creek Lagoon, Meadow Creek, and Meadow Creek Lagoon, resulting in greater percolation (i.e., inflow) of surface waters from Arroyo Grande Creek into the alluvial aquifer of the SMGB. However, as indicated in the 2023 BRA, Phase I of the Modified Project would result in a negligible impact to percolation rates of Arroyo Grande Creek during normal and dry years, based on an analysis prepared by Geoscience Support Services, Inc. (Appendix B). Under Phase II of the proposed project, more advanced purified water would be injected into the SMGB than the corresponding increase in groundwater extractions; therefore, this phase of the Modified Project would not have any adverse impacts on percolation rates and corresponding surface water levels of local water features. In addition, the minimal amount of dewatering that may be required during construction of the pump station at the SSLOCSD WWTP would not be substantial enough to affect surface water levels in nearby water bodies. Furthermore, the project includes monitoring of groundwater levels during construction dewatering at the ATF complex location and implementation of management actions to be protective of surface water levels in Oceano Lagoon such that special status species would not be impacted. Therefore, construction- phase and operational groundwater extraction facilitated by the Modified Project would not substantially alter the hydrology of local water features such that adverse impacts to special status aquatic species would occur (Appendix B). As with the Original Project, impacts to special status animal species from groundwater extraction under the Modified Project would be less than significant.
In light of the above discussion, the Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts to special status animal species and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
RIPARIAN HABITAT AND SENSITIVE VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
Similar to the Original Project, the majority of the Modified Project would not result in impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive habitat types, and the Modified Project as a whole would not impact federally-designated critical habitat for La Graciosa thistle or other federally listed species. However, construction of pipelines would directly impact the arroyo willow thicket vegetation community associated with Arroyo Grande Creek and saltgrass flats associated with the emergent wetland through habitat removal on the Oceano County Airport property. The arroyo willow riparian habitat
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 41
is identified as ESHA under the adopted Local Coastal Programs for the City of Grover Beach and the County of San Luis Obispo, while the saltgrass flats are a State-designated sensitive natural community (Appendix B). As with the Original Project, direct impacts to these habitats could occur through ground disturbance, vegetation removal, and conversion of habitats to developed land uses. Indirect impacts would occur if construction equipment inadvertently transports residual plant material from other construction sites (e.g., seeds of invasive plant species carried to the site within the undercarriage or tires of heavy equipment that has not been cleaned thoroughly between construction sites), which could lead to the spread of invasive, non-native species from construction equipment. Invasive, non- native plant species can out-compete native species and/or convert riparian habitat to non-native habitat. Therefore, similar to the Original Project, direct and indirect impacts to sensitive plant communities and ESHA from construction of pipelines in the Oceano County Airport under the Modified Project would be potentially significant (Appendix B). Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 from the certified EIR would continue to apply to the Modified Project and would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. As such, the Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts to riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
STATE AND FEDERALLY PROTECTED WETLANDS
As required by Mitigation Measure BIO-3(a) in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of the certified EIR, a Jurisdictional Delineation was prepared for the Modified Project (Appendix C). The Jurisdictional Delineation identified two detention basins, two wetlands, a roadway drainage, an intermittent stream, two agriculture ditches, and areas of riparian habitat potentially subject to the jurisdictions of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), CDFW, and/or California Coastal Commission [CCC] within the Modified Project area (Appendix C). Similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would potentially result in temporary direct impacts to these features during trenching for pipeline installation in the Oceano County Airport property through temporary displacement of soil and vegetation and removal of riparian habitat. Direct impacts would also occur if spills or leaks occur within arroyo willow riparian habitat during construction at locations within or adjacent to this habitat. Therefore, as with the Original Project, impacts to jurisdictional waters and wetlands under the Modified Project would be potentially significant, and the project would require the issuance of permits by the RWQCB and CDFW as well as the CCC (Appendix B). Mitigation Measures BIO-3(b) and BIO-3(c) would continue to apply to the Modified Project and would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. In addition, as with the Original Project, operational groundwater extraction proposed under the Modified Project would not result in hydrologic interruption to state and federally protected wetlands. Furthermore, the construction-phase production of groundwater during well development at the injection and monitoring well locations under the Modified Project would not have the potential to lower surface water levels. Also, the project includes monitoring of groundwater levels during construction dewatering at the ATF complex location and implementation of management actions to be protective of surface water levels in Oceano Lagoon such that hydrologic interruption of state and federally protected wetlands would not occur. As such, impacts from construction-phase and operational groundwater extraction would be less than significant (Appendix B).
WILDLIFE MOVEMENT AND NATIVE WILDLIFE NURSERY SITES
Similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would not include project components that would interfere substantially with the movement of wildlife, migration, or native wildlife nursery sites (Appendix B). As such, the Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts to wildlife
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
42 movement and native wildlife nursery sites and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
LOCAL POLICIES AND ORDINANCES PROTECTING BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The Modified Project area would remain largely the same as the Original Project area with the addition of an approximately 0.5-acre area immediately adjacent to the southwestern boundary of the Original Project area for MW-NCMA-South A/B/C. As with the Original Project, trees may be removed to accommodate the proposed injection wells, monitoring wells, ATF complex and pipelines under the Modified Project; however, the species and number of trees is not known at this time. As with the Original Project, if the removal of native trees in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County does not occur in accordance with the requirements of the San Luis Obispo County Code, the Modified Project would potentially conflict with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources (Appendix B). Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would continue to apply to the Modified Project and would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANS AND NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLANS The Modified Project area would remain largely the same as the Original Project area with the addition of an approximately 0.5-acre area immediately adjacent to the southwestern boundary of the Original Project area for MW-NCMA-South A/B/C. As with the Original Project, the Modified Project would not be subject to an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans (Appendix B). As such, the Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts to these plans and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new significant or substantially more severe effects associated with biological resources would occur, and no new mitigation measures are necessary. Impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated from the certified EIR.
As with the Original Project, Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) through BIO-1(k), BIO-2, BIO-3(b), BIO-3(c), and BIO-5 outlined in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of the certified EIR would reduce potential impacts to cultural resources to a less-than-significant level with minor clarifications to Mitigation Measures BIO-1(b), BIO-1(d), BIO-2, and BIO-3(b), and BIO-3(c), as shown in strikeout/underline format below.14 Mitigation Measure BIO-3(a) included in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, of the certified EIR has been completed for the Modified Project through preparation of a Jurisdictional Delineation (Appendix C).
BIO-1(a) California Red-legged Frog Habitat Avoidance
Injection well, monitoring well and water distribution pipeline locations and associated construction work areas (including staging, access, and laydown) shall be sited outside of native vegetation communities, such as arroyo willow riparian. Prior to construction, the limits of construction shall be clearly demarcated by bright orange fencing. Areas outside of the limits of construction shall be considered environmentally sensitive, and access and construction shall be restricted.
14 Mitigation Measures BIO-1(f) through BIO-1(k) would continue to apply to the proposed agricultural irrigation pipelines, which have not changed under the Modified Project, to reduce impacts to biological resources associated with this project component to a less-than- significant level.
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 43
BIO-1(b) California Red-legged Frog Avoidance and Minimization Measures The following avoidance and minimization measures shall be implemented during project construction and maintenance activities requiring ground disturbance at the IW-5A, IW-5B, and MW 5A/5B/5C locations and water distribution pipeline locations within 50 feet of Arroyo Grande Creek and Meadow Creek:
A qualified biologist shall survey the project site no more than 48 hours before the start of construction and ground-disturbing maintenance activities, including but not limited to grading, excavation, and trenching. If a CRLF is found within the project footprint, no work shall begin, and consultation with the USFWS shall be initiated. Work shall not begin until authorization is provided by the USFWS to continue or applicable measures from a Biological Opinion/Incidental Take Permit Statement issued by the USFWS for the project are successfully implemented. For construction activities occurring during the wet season (October 15 and April 15), daily surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to the start of construction activities. If a CRLF is found within the project footprint, work shall halt, and consultation with the USFWS shall be initiated. Work shall not re-commence until authorization is provided by the USFWS to continue or applicable measures from a Biological Opinion/Incidental Take Permit Statement issued by the USFWS for the project are successfully implemented.
Before any construction or ground-disturbing maintenance activities begin, a biologist shall conduct a training session for all construction personnel. At a minimum, the training shall include a description of CRLF and its habitat, the specific measures that are being implemented to avoid dispersing CRLF, and the boundaries within which the project may be accomplished. Brochures, books, and briefings may be used in the training session, provided that a qualified person is on hand to answer any questions.
All vehicles and equipment shall be in good working condition and free of leaks. A spill prevention plan shall be established in the event of a leak or spill. Work shall be restricted to daylight hours to the extent feasible. If construction activities occur at night, a biological monitor shall be present. If a CRLF is found within the project footprint during active construction, all work shall stop, and the USFWS shall be notified. Work shall not recommence until authorization is provided by the USFWS to continue or applicable measures from a Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement or other authorization issued by the USFWS for the project are successfully implemented.
Water shall not be impounded in a manner that may attract CRLF. All excavations or trenches shall be covered or shall contain earthen ramps sufficient for CRLF to escape when not actively under construction or shall contain earthen ramps sufficient for CRLF to escape to avoid entrapment of CRLF or other wildlife species. Herbicides shall not be used on site during construction. No pets shall be permitted on site.
A biological monitor shall be present during all initial ground-disturbing activities for construction and maintenance activities, including but not limited to grading, excavation, and trenching. If a CRLF is found within the project footprint during active construction, all work shall stop, and the USFWS shall be notified. Work shall not recommence until authorization is provided by the USFWS to continue or applicable measures from a Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement or other authorization issued by the USFWS for the project are successfully implemented. All construction and ground-disturbing maintenance activities (e.g., grading, excavation, and trenching) conducted at injection well, monitoring well, and water distribution pipeline locations
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
44 within 50 feet of Arroyo Grande Creek and Meadow Creek shall be conducted during dry conditions (i.e., days with less than 0.1 inch of predicted rainfall), outside of the wet season (October 15 through April 30), unless authorization is provided by the USFWS or a Biological Opinion/Incidental Take Statement issued by the USFWS for the project authorizes work during such conditions.
BIO-1(c) Southwestern Pond Turtle Avoidance and Minimization Measures The following avoidance and minimization measures shall be implemented during project construction and maintenance activities requiring ground disturbance at the IW-5A, IW-5B, and MW 5A/5B/5C locations and water distribution pipeline locations within 50 feet of Arroyo Grande Creek and Meadow Creek:
A qualified biologist shall conduct a visual survey of work areas within 50 feet of Arroyo Grande Creek and Meadow Creek within 48 hours of initial ground-disturbing activities, including but not limited to grading, excavation, and trenching, associated with construction of injection wells. The survey area shall include the proposed disturbance area plus a 100-foot buffer. Prior to the survey, suitable receptor sites shall be identified within Arroyo Grande Creek and Meadow Creek. A biologist authorized to relocate turtles shall be present for activities that require the removal of riparian habitat to monitor for turtles. If a turtle is observed in the work area, the biologist shall relocate it out of the work area to the respective receptor site. For the duration of project construction activities at the IW-5A, IW-5B, and MW 5A/5B/5C locations and water distribution pipeline locations within 50 feet of Arroyo Grande Creek and Meadow Creek, daily surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to the start of construction activities. If a turtle is observed in the work area, a biologist authorized to relocate turtles shall relocate it out of the work area to the respective receptor site. All excavations or trenches shall be covered when not actively under construction or shall contain earthen ramps sufficient for southwestern pond turtle to escape to avoid entrapment of southwestern pond turtle or other wildlife species.
In the event that a southwestern pond turtle egg clutch is discovered during pre-construction surveys, the location shall be surrounded with high visibility fencing under the guidance of a qualified biologist. The nest shall be avoided by construction activities until a qualified biologist determines that the clutch has hatched. The CDFW shall also be contacted to provide additional guidance in the event that a southwestern pond turtle nest is discovered. If, during construction, a southwestern pond turtle nest is discovered, construction shall cease immediately upon the discovery, and CDFW shall be notified.
To the extent feasible, construction activities shall be scheduled outside of the typical nesting season for southwestern pond turtle, which is April through August (Stebbins 2003).
BIO-1(d) Monarch Butterfly Avoidance
The ATF complex and associated construction work areas shall be sited outside of monarch butterfly overwintering habitat. If removal of the eucalyptus tree grove occurs after the start of the next overwintering period in October 2023, a survey shall be conducted prior to removal of the grove and during the overwintering period (i.e., October through February) for monarchs in the region to determine if monarchs are utilizing the eucalyptus grove south of 980 Huber Street in Grover Beach for overwintering. A survey shall also be conducted if the eucalyptus grove is not removed and other construction activities at the ATF complex location commence after the start of the next overwintering period in October 2023. Prior to construction and during the overwintering period for
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 45
monarchs in the region (i.e., October through February), a survey shall be conducted at the eucalyptus grove adjacent to the ATF complex to determine if monarch butterflies are utilizing the habitat for overwintering. If monarch butterflies are confirmed to overwinter within the eucalyptus grove, the grove shall be considered ESHA, and design of the ATF complex shall be modified to incorporate the appropriate setbacks included in the City of Grover Beach Local Coastal Program and Grover Beach Municipal Code. The limits of construction shall be clearly demarcated by bright orange fencing in order to avoid work within designated setback areas. Areas outside of the limits of construction shall be considered environmentally sensitive, and access and construction shall be restricted. If butterflies are present, all construction adjacent to overwintering habitat shall be conducted outside the overwintering season (i.e., October to February), if feasible. However, if construction must occur during this time period, a pre-construction survey of the monarch overwintering habitat adjacent to the ATF complex location shall be conducted to confirm presence or absence of monarch butterflies.
If no butterflies are observed, construction may commence. If butterflies are observed, construction may only commence if a City-approved monarch butterfly expert determines that the construction activities would not adversely impact foraging, roosting, or other behaviors of the species.
BIO-1(e) Nesting Bird Avoidance and Minimization Measures The following avoidance and minimization measures shall be implemented during project construction activities:
Initial site disturbance shall occur outside the general avian nesting season (February 1 through August 31), if feasible.
If initial site disturbance occurs in a work area within the general avian nesting season indicated above, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey no more than 14 days prior to initial disturbances in the work area. The survey shall include the entire area of disturbance area plus a 50-foot buffer (relevant to non-raptor species) and 300-foot buffer (relevant to raptors) around the site. If active nests are located, all construction work should be conducted outside a buffer zone from the nest to be determined by the qualified biologist. The buffer should be a minimum of 50 feet for non-raptor bird species and at least 300 feet for raptor species. Larger buffers may be required and/or smaller buffers may be established depending upon the species, status of the nest, and construction activities occurring in the vicinity of the nest. The buffer area(s) should be closed to all construction personnel and equipment until the adults and young are no longer reliant on the nest site. A qualified biologist should confirm that breeding/nesting is completed and young have fledged the nest prior to removal of the buffer. If a white-tailed kite nest is detected during the nesting bird survey no work shall begin until the CDFW is consulted to confirm that implementation of the project and avoidance buffers are sufficient to avoid “take”.
If construction activities in a given work area cease for more than 14 days, additional surveys shall be conducted for the work area. If active nests are located, the aforementioned buffer zone measures shall be implemented.
BIO-2 Sensitive Plant Community and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area Avoidance and Minimization Measures
The following avoidance and minimization measures shall be implemented during project construction and maintenance activities requiring vegetation disturbance within arroyo willow habitat and saltgrass flats.
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
46 Temporary impact areas to arroyo willow habitat and saltgrass flats shall be restored at a one to one (1:1) ratio (one acre of restoration for each acre of impact) to offset temporary losses in wetland, stream, or riparian function. Permanent impacts shall be offset through creation, restoration, and/or enhancement of in-kind habitats at a minimum ratio of 2:1 to mitigate unavoidable permanent impacts to arroyo willow habitat these habitats. A Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) shall be prepared by a biologist familiar with restoration and mitigation techniques. The plan shall include, but not be limited to the following components:
Description of the project/impact site (i.e., location, responsible parties, areas to be impacted by habitat type);
Goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation project (type[s] and area[s] of habitat to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved;
Specific functions and values of habitat type(s) to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved);
Description of the proposed compensatory mitigation site (location and size, ownership status, existing functions and values of the compensatory mitigation site); Implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation site (rationale for expecting implementation success, responsible parties, schedule, site preparation, planting plan [including plant species to be used, container sizes, seeding rates, etc.]); Maintenance activities during the monitoring period, including weed removal and irrigation as appropriate (activities, responsible parties, schedule); Monitoring plan for the compensatory mitigation site, including no less than five years of monitoring with quarterly monitoring for the first year (performance standards, target functions and values, target acreages to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved, annual monitoring reports);
Success criteria based on the goals and measurable objectives; said criteria to be, at a minimum, at least 80 percent survival of container plants and 30 percent relative cover by vegetation type;
An adaptive management program and remedial measures to address negative impacts to restoration efforts;
Notification of completion of compensatory mitigation and agency confirmation; and Contingency measures (initiating procedures, alternative locations for contingency compensatory mitigation, funding mechanism).
During construction, the project shall make all reasonable efforts to limit the use of imported soils for fill. Soils currently existing on site should be used for fill material. If the use of imported fill material is necessary, the imported material shall be obtained from a source that is known to be free of invasive plant species.
All equipment and vehicles must be free of weed seeds/propagules before accessing and leaving the work areas.
BIO-3(a) Jurisdictional Delineation
Prior to final determination of the water distribution pipeline locations and associated construction work areas within the Oceano County Airport property, a qualified biologist shall complete a jurisdictional delineation of the project site to aid in the siting of the water distribution pipeline alignments as well as other project areas. The jurisdictional delineation shall determine the extent of
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 47
the jurisdiction(s) for local agencies (i.e., the City of Grover Beach and County of San Luis Obispo), CDFW, USACE, and/or RWQCB and shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements set forth by each agency.
BIO-3(b) Drainages and Wetlands Impact Mitigation
Impacts to drainages and wetlands identified by the Jurisdictional Delineation (Mitigation Measure 3[a]) shall be mitigated at a minimum of 1:1 (acre impacted: acre restored/created). Restoration on the project site is preferable. However, the City may approve off-site restoration at a location in the same watershed as where the project impacts occur that results in equal compensatory value. An HMMP shall be prepared which identifies the approach for implementing compensatory mitigation.
The HMMP shall be prepared by a qualified biologist/restoration ecologist and shall outline the compensatory mitigation. As part of t The HMMP, a final mitigation implementation plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to project implementation. This HMMP can and should be combined with any HMMPs prepared to address impacts to sensitive plant communities and ESHAs. Specifically, the HMMP shall include the following:
Description of the project/impact site (i.e., location, responsible parties, areas to be impacted by habitat type);
Goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation project (type[s] and area[s] of habitat to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved; specific functions and values of habitat type[s] to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved);
Description of the proposed compensatory mitigation site (location and size, ownership status, existing functions and values of the compensatory mitigation site); Implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation site (rationale for expecting implementation success, responsible parties, schedule, site preparation, planting plan [including plant species to be used, container sizes, seeding rates, etc.]); Maintenance activities during the monitoring period, including weed removal and irrigation as appropriate (activities, responsible parties, schedule); Monitoring plan for the compensatory mitigation site, including no less than five years of monitoring with quarterly monitoring for the first year (performance standards, target functions and values, target acreages to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved, annual monitoring reports);
Success criteria based on the goals and measurable objectives; said criteria to be, at a minimum, at least 80 percent survival of container plants and 30 percent relative cover by vegetation type; An adaptive management program and remedial measures to address negative impacts to restoration efforts;
Notification of completion of compensatory mitigation and agency confirmation; and Contingency measures (initiating procedures, alternative locations for contingency compensatory mitigation, funding mechanism).
BIO-3(c) Drainages and Wetlands Best Management Practices During Construction For all project components the following best management practices shall be required for permitted grading and construction within drainages or wetlands. In addition, the measures shall be required at locations where construction occurs within 100 feet from drainages or wetlands.
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
48 Access routes, staging, and construction areas shall be limited to the minimum area necessary to achieve the project goal and minimize impacts to other federal and State waters, including locating access routes and ancillary construction areas outside of jurisdictional areas. To control erosion and sediment runoff during and after project implementation, appropriate erosion control materials shall be deployed, including but not limited to straw wattles, and maintained in the vicinity of the project footprint.
Project activities within the drainages or wetlands shall occur during the dry season in any given year to the extent practicable. The dry season is typically between May 1 and September 30; however, this timeframe may be extended depending on year-to-year precipitation and drought conditions.
All topsoil removed within riparian habitat and wetland waters shall be salvaged and replaced following completion of construction activities.
During construction, no litter or construction debris shall be placed within drainages or wetlands.
All such debris and waste shall be picked up daily and properly disposed of at an appropriate site. All project-generated debris, building materials, and rubbish shall be removed daily from jurisdictional areas and from areas where such materials could be washed into them. Raw cement, concrete or washings thereof, asphalt, paint or other coating material, oil or other petroleum products, or any other substances which could be hazardous to aquatic species resulting from project-related activities, shall be prevented from contaminating the soil and/or entering drainages or wetlands.
All refueling, maintenance, and staging of equipment and vehicles shall occur at least 100 feet from drainages and wetlands and in a location where a potential spill would not drain directly toward aquatic habitat (e.g., on a slope that drains away from the water source). Prior to the onset of work activities, a plan must be in place for prompt and effective response to any accidental spills. All workers shall be informed of the importance of preventing spills and of the appropriate measures to take should an accidental spill occur. If installation of the agricultural irrigation pipelines requires the crossing of Arroyo Grande Creek, a Frac-Out Contingency Plan shall be prepared and, and in the event of frac-out, it shall be implemented. The Frac-Out Contingency Plan shall include the following:
The purpose of the contingency plan;
Preventative measures to minimize the likelihood of a frac-out; The planning and design of the augur boring or horizontal directional drilling; Pre-construction requirements; and
Contingency response to contain and remove drilling fluids and closeout procedures. The contingency response shall include general guidelines with all equipment required, guidelines for terrestrial frac-outs along the banks and riparian corridor of Arroyo Grande Creek, guidelines for aquatic frac-outs within Arroyo Grande Creek, and bore abandonment.
BIO-5 Native Tree Inventory, Protection, and Replacement A Tree Preservation Plan shall be prepared by a certified arborist to inventory native trees that would be trimmed or removed by construction. Native trees shall be avoided to the maximum extent feasible. The plan shall include, but would not be limited to, an inventory of trees within the construction site plus a 50-foot buffer zone, requirements for setbacks from trees and protective fencing, restrictions regarding grading and paving near trees, and direction regarding pruning and digging within root zone of trees. If removal of native trees is required, the trees shall be replaced
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 49
consistent with the requirements of the local agency which has jurisdiction as well as the associated tree removal permit that may be issued.
Prior to the onset of construction activities, highly visible orange construction fencing shall be installed around existing stands and individuals identified in the Tree Preservation Plan to be retained at a buffer/extent radius of six feet beyond the canopy dripline, wherever feasible, or otherwise marked in the field to protect them from harm during implementation of the proposed project.
Conclusion
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated (Same as Certified EIR)
4.3 Cultural and Tribal Resources
Impact Analysis
Original Central Coast Blue Project
The certified EIR determined the Original Project would result in no impacts to historic resources and potentially significant impacts to archaeological resources. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-2(a) through CR-2(d) outlined in Section 4.3, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, of the certified EIR, impacts to archaeological resources would be reduced to a less-than- significant level. The certified EIR also determined the Original Project would result in no impacts to known human remains and that adherence to existing regulations relating to human remains would ensure impacts related to any unanticipated discoveries of human remains would be less than significant.
No specific tribal cultural resources in the Original Project area were identified through the Assembly Bill (AB) 52 consultation process. Because no specific tribal cultural resources were identified, the certified EIR determined impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant and that implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-2(a) through CR-2(d) would further reduce this already less than significant impact.
Modified Central Coast Blue Project
The following analysis is based on a supplemental Cultural Resources Assessment prepared for the Modified Project in 2023 (2023 CRA), which is included in Appendix D of this Addendum (Rincon 2023c). This report also satisfies the requirements of Mitigation Measure CR-2(d) to prepare an archaeological resource study for the new production well, which had an unknown location at the time of the certified EIR but has since been sited at the ATF complex.
HISTORIC RESOURCES
Similar to the Original Project, the 2023 CRA identified one historic resource located within the Modified Project area - the Oceano Train Depot. MW-5D/5E/5F would be installed in the same location under the Modified Project as under the Original Project within the paved parking lot of the Oceano Train Depot at sufficient distance from the building to avoid vibration impacts (see Section
4.10, Noise, of the certified EIR). Therefore, as with the Original Project, the Modified Project would result in no impacts to historic resources (Appendix D). As such, the Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts to historic resources and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
50 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The Modified Project area would remain largely the same as the Original Project area with the addition of an approximately 0.5-acre area immediately adjacent to the southwestern boundary of the Original Project area. Similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project area is highly sensitive for archaeological resources, and as a result, the Modified Project would result in potentially significant impacts to archaeological resources (Appendix D). Mitigation Measures CR-2(a) though CR- 2(d) would continue to apply to construction activities for the Modified Project and would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. As such, the Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts to archaeological resources and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
HUMAN REMAINS
The 2023 CRA determined no human remains exist within the Modified Project area but that the discovery of human remains is always a possibility during ground disturbing activities. As with the Original Project, impacts to human remains would be less than significant under the Modified Project with adherence to existing regulations. As such, the Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts to human remains and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
On January 27, 2023, the City of Pismo Beach, as CEQA lead agency, distributed AB 52 consultation letters for the Modified Project, including a description of the Modified Project, map, contact information, and a copy of the original AB 52 letter sent in 2020 for the Original Project. The Native American contacts provided with an AB 52 consultation letter, sent via certified mail, included the following tribes listed on the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)-provided contact list:15 San Luis Obispo County Chumash Council
yak tityu tityu yak tiłhini – Northern Chumash Tribe
Northern Chumash Tribal Council
Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission Indians
Salinan Tribe of Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation
Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians
Chumash Council of Bakersfield
Under AB 52, Native American tribes were provided 30 days to respond and request further project information and formal consultation. The City received requests for consultation from two tribes - the Northern Chumash Tribal Council and the yak tityu tityu yak tiłhini – Northern Chumash Tribe. In addition, the City received input via email from the Salinan Tribe of Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties; however, this tribe did not request formal AB 52 consultation. The City also had a meeting
15 Although contacted during the AB 52 consultation process for the Original Project, an AB 52 consultation letter was not sent to the Xolon- Salinan Tribe during the AB 52 consultation process for the Modified Project because this tribe is no longer included on the tribal contact list provided by the NAHC for the Modified Project area. In addition, as indicated in Section 4.3, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, of the Final EIR, Chairperson Karen White of the Xolon-Salinan Tribe indicated the Original Project Area, which is largely the same as the Modified Project area, is outside the traditional Xolon-Salinan tribal lands.
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 51
with Dr. Wendy Teeter of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians on June 13, 2023 to discuss their input and recommendations related to the Draft Addendum.
As discussed in the 2023 CRA (Appendix D), Rincon requested a search of the Sacred Land File (SLF) from the NAHC to identify the potential for cultural resources within the Modified Project site and to obtain contact information for Native Americans groups or individuals who may have knowledge of resources within the project site. The SLF search was returned with positive results. The NAHC identifies sacred sites by 7.5-minute quadrangle; if a site is anywhere within the quadrangle, a positive result is produced. A 7.5-minute quadrangle encompasses areas between 49 to 70 square miles, indicating that the sacred site may be within the Modified Project area or located several miles away.
More specific locational information for sacred sites is only obtained through tribal outreach and consultation. On January 24, 2023, Rincon sent informal coordination letters to 10 Native American contacts in the area to request information on potential cultural resources in the Modified Project area that may be impacted by the Modified Project. Rincon conducted follow-up calls for the coordination efforts on January 31, 2023, and February 3, 2023. This outreach did not constitute formal AB 52 consultation, which is discussed later in this section. Responses from NAHC-listed contacts are provided below (Appendix D):
Northern Chumash Tribal Council. On January 24, 2023, Violet Walker, Chairperson for the Northern Chumash Tribal Council, responded via email stating the Council is interested in consultation for the Modified Project.
Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission Indians. On January 30, 2023, Annette Ayala, Cultural Resources Management Committee Chair of Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission Indians, stated via phone conversation that she defers to local tribes. Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation. On January 30, 2023, Mia Lopez, Chairperson for the Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation, stated via phone conversation she was unable to download the letter Rincon sent and requested it be re-sent. Rincon re-sent the letter on January 30, 2023. On February 3, 2023, Chairperson Lopez stated via phone that she is contacting other Northern Chumash Tribes regarding the project and will provide comment at a later date. Rincon followed up with Chairperson Lopez on February 14, 2023, via email. No further comment has been received.
yak tityu tityu yak tiłhini – Northern Chumash Tribe. On January 30, 2023, Mona Tucker, Chairperson for the yak tityu tityu yak tiłhini – Northern Chumash Tribe, requested via phone conversation that archaeological and tribal monitoring be conducted for the undertaking.
Chairperson Tucker also stated that although the CHRIS identified two resources within the APE, there are likely more archaeological resources within the APE. Chairperson Tucker inquired when the undertaking may begin ground disturbing activities. Rincon responded via email to Chairperson Tucker’s inquiry on February 14, 2023, stating the start of ground-disturbing activities is currently unknown.
Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians. On January 31, 2023, Crystal Mendoza, Administrative Assistance for the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, left Rincon a voicemail stating she would like a copy of the letter sent to her email address. Rincon emailed Ms. Mendoza a copy of the letter on January 31, 2023, and Ms. Mendoza responded via email that she would forward the letter to the Tribe’s Cultural Resources Management team and get back with the Tribe’s response. On February 2, 2023, Ms. Mendoza sent a letter via email stating the Tribe was requesting formal consultation and to contact Dr. Wendy Teeter, Cultural Resource Archaeologist.
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
52 Salinan Tribe of Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties. On February 1, 2023, Patti Dunton, Tribal Administrator for the Salinan Tribe of Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties, responded via email that they are aware of the same sites that Rincon has already identified and that the Tribe requests all ground-disturbing activities in these sensitive areas be monitored by a cultural resource specialist from their Tribe. Ms. Dunton requested to be kept informed as the project moves forward.
As stated previously, the City of Pismo Beach held two consultation meetings, one with the Northern Chumash Tribal Council and one with the yak tityu tityu yak tiłhini – Northern Chumash Tribe. In addition, the City of Pismo Beach received two emails with input from the Salinan Tribe of Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties, but this tribe did not request formal AB 52 consultation. On February 3, Rincon also contacted the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians via email on behalf of the City of Pismo Beach to inquire as to whether the tribe would like to consult under AB 52 based on feedback received during the informal NAHC outreach process. No response was received from this tribe within the 30-day AB 52 consultation period. However, on June 7, 2023 during public review of the Draft Addendum, this tribe expressed interest in meeting with the City to discuss the project, so the City also held a meeting with this tribe.
A summary of consultation meetings and feedback is provided below. yak tityu tityu yak tiłhini – Northern Chumash Tribe. The City of Pismo Beach held a consultation meeting with Chairperson Mona Tucker of the yak tityu tityu yak tiłhini – Northern Chumash Tribe on February 13, 2023. Chairperson Tucker expressed concerns about the cultural resource sensitivity of the area, especially to the east of the Coastal Dunes RV Park and Campground as well as within the agricultural lands in which MW-NCMA North A/B/C and MW-NCMA South A/B/C would be located and near the water feature near MW-NCMA South A/B/C. Chairperson Tucker indicated some portions of the Modified Project area may not require monitoring, but indicated the difficulty of identifying those specific areas. Chairperson Tucker recommended the cultural resources monitoring plan be reviewed by the yak tityu tityu yak tiłhini – Northern Chumash Tribe and recommended that the Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training be presented in a way that gives construction personnel a good sense of potential resources they may encounter. Chairperson Tucker also recommended designating a person to keep track of whether construction personnel have received the WEAP as new personnel are added to the work throughout construction.
Northern Chumash Tribal Council. The City of Pismo Beach held a consultation meeting with Chairperson Violet Collins, Ernest R. Houston (Tribal Cultural Resource Monitor), and Michael Khus-zarate (Boardmember) of the Northern Chumash Tribal Council on March 3, 2023. The Tribe requested additional information on the water quality of and permitting requirements for the proposed reverse osmosis concentrate that would be discharged via the existing ocean outfall for comparison to the standards under consideration for the proposed Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary. This information was provided to the Tribe via email on March 3, 2023. The Tribe also requested a copy of the cultural resources mitigation measures from the certified EIR, which was provided via email on March 3, 2023. The Tribe noted a potential grant opportunity (the Regional Resiliency Grant Program) for Tribal collaboration on the Modified Project and expressed interest in collaborating with the City of Pismo Beach on pursuing this opportunity. The Tribe expressed interest in continuing its involvement in the project and providing feedback on the cultural resources monitoring plan once developed, and the Tribe suggested incorporating language from monitoring plans prepared for similar projects in Cayucos and Morro Bay into the
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 53
Modified Project’s monitoring plan. The Tribe recommended equitable distribution of monitoring between local Tribes and recommended a monitor be present at each active construction site.
The Tribe indicated that negative results of pedestrian surveys and prior ground disturbance are not indicators of the absence of archaeological resources at depth and noted they have discovered resources at up to six to eight feet in depth while monitoring projects in the region. Salinan Tribe of Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties. In emails dated February 2, 2023 and February 24, 2023, Patti Dunton, Tribal Administrator of the Salinan Tribe of Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties, stated the tribe has many concerns that known and unknown cultural resources may be impacted by the Modified Project and requested all ground-disturbing activities be monitored by a cultural resources specialist from the Salinan Tribe of Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties. Ms. Dunton also requested to be in contact as the project moves forward. Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians. The City of Pismo Beach held a meeting with Dr. Wendy Teeter (Cultural Resources Archaeologist) on June 13, 2023. Dr. Teeter noted the sensitivity of the Modified Project area for cultural resources and expressed general concurrence with the contents of the cultural resources mitigation measures included in the Draft Addendum. In a follow-up email dated June 13, 2023, Dr. Teeter provided suggested revisions to Mitigation Measures CR- 2(a) through CR-2(c). The City reviewed and considered the changes recommended by Dr. Teeter and determined the changes do not affect the substantive content of Mitigation Measures CR- 2(a) through CR-2(c). As a result, the suggested revisions were not incorporated into the mitigation measures.
As with the Original Project, no specific tribal cultural resources in the Modified Project area were identified through the follow-up AB 52 consultation process. The area was discussed to be generally highly sensitive for cultural resources of Native American origin. Requests and recommendations made by the tribes are integrated into Mitigation Measures CR-2(a) through CR-2(c), which require a WEAP, archaeological and Native American monitoring, and steps to take in the event of an unanticipated discovery of cultural resources during ground-disturbing activities. Similar to the Original Project, because no specific tribal cultural resources were identified, impacts to tribal cultural resources under the Modified Project would be less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-2(a) through CR-2(c) would further reduce this impact below the level of significance.
As such, the Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts to tribal cultural resources and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new significant or substantially more severe effects associated with cultural resources would occur, and no new mitigation measures are necessary. Impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated from the certified EIR.
As with the Original Project, Mitigation Measures CR-2(a) through CR-2(d) outlined in Section 4.3, Cultural and Tribal Resources, of the certified EIR would reduce potential impacts to cultural resources to a less-than-significant level with minor clarifications to Mitigation Measure CR-2(b) as shown in strikeout/underline format below.16
16 Mitigation Measure CR-2(d) would continue to apply to the proposed agricultural irrigation pipelines, which have not changed under the Modified Project, to reduce impacts to the archaeological resources associated with this project component to a less-than-significant level.
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
54 CR-2(a) Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program
A qualified archaeologist shall be retained to conduct a Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program training on archaeological sensitivity for all construction personnel prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing activities. The training should be conducted by an archaeologist who meets or exceeds the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983). Archaeological sensitivity training should include a description of the types of cultural material that may be encountered, cultural sensitivity issues, the regulatory environment, and the proper protocol for treatment of the materials in the event of a find.
CR-2(b) Archaeological and Native American Monitoring
During initial ground disturbance for the project, a qualified archaeologist and locally affiliated Native American monitor shall monitor construction activities within the project area. Initial ground disturbance is defined as disturbance within previously undisturbed native soils. Prior to ground disturbing activities, a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology, shall be hired to develop a Cultural Resources Mitigation Plan in consultation with a locally affiliated Native American tribe. The Cultural Resources Mitigation Plan shall identify procedures and requirements for monitoring as well as outline procedures for archaeological finds during monitoring efforts. A cultural resources monitoring plan shall be completed prior to the commencement of monitoring, which outlines monitoring procedures, stop work authorities, and procedures to be taken in the event of a find. The monitoring mitigation plan shall also provide a monitoring form template to be completed by the monitors for each monitoring day. If, during initial ground disturbance, the qualified archaeologist determines that the construction activities have little or no potential to impact cultural resources (e.g., excavations are within previously disturbed, non-native soils, or within a soil formation not expected to yield cultural resources deposits), the qualified archaeologist may recommend that monitoring be reduced or eliminated. If cultural resources are identified during initial monitoring, work in the immediate vicinity shall halt until the resource has been evaluated for significance. Any cultural resources identified will be reported to the applicable local land use permitting agency (i.e., City of Grover Beach, County of San Luis Obispo).
CR-2(c) Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources
If cultural resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area must halt and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983) shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. Should cultural resources be discovered during excavation, additional studies including data recovery efforts may be needed to reduce project impacts and/or consultation with local tribes and the City, acting as lead agency, may be necessary to mitigate any significant impacts/adverse effects.
Conclusion
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated (Same as Certified EIR)
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 55
4.4 Energy
Impact Analysis
Original Central Coast Blue Project
The certified EIR determined the Original Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy consumption during construction and operation because the project would be subject to compliance with energy efficiency regulations, construction contractors would be incentivized to conserve energy for cost efficiency, and the project would serve the necessary purpose of stabilizing and protecting existing local groundwater supplies. The certified EIR also determined the Original Project would be potentially inconsistent with the renewable energy and energy efficiency measures, goals, and policies of the City of Pismo Beach’s Climate Action Plan and the City of Grover Beach’s General Plan. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures E-2 and GHG-2 outlined in Section 4.4, Energy, and Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, respectively, of the certified EIR, impacts related to consistency with renewable energy and energy efficiency plans would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Modified Central Coast Blue Project
ENERGY RESOURCE CONSUMPTION
Construction
As with the Original Project, construction of the Modified Project would require energy resources primarily in the form of fuel consumption to operate heavy equipment, light-duty vehicles, machinery, and generators. Temporary grid power may also be provided to construction trailers or electric construction equipment. Table 8 summarizes the anticipated fuel consumption from construction equipment and vehicles, including worker trips to and from the construction site, under the Modified Project. As shown therein, construction of the Modified Project would require approximately 26,073 gallons of gasoline and 305,110 gallons of diesel fuel. Estimated gasoline fuel consumption would be greater than that estimated for the Original Project due to changes in construction characteristics under the Modified Project, such as extended construction schedules that result in additional construction worker and vendor trips for material/concrete deliveries and water trucks. Estimated diesel fuel consumption would be less than that estimated for the Original Project, primarily due to updated construction equipment and vehicle trip parameters developed in support of CalEEMod 2022.1, which are utilized in the energy modeling completed in support of this Addendum.
Table 8 Construction Fuel Consumption – Modified Project Source Gasoline (gallons) Diesel (gallons)
Construction Equipment and Hauling Trips
Injection/Monitoring/Production Wells -- 74,970
Water Distribution and Sewer Pipelines – Phase I -- 62,549 Water Distribution Pipelines – Phase II -- 18,281
Agricultural Irrigation Pipelines1 -- 46,837
Advanced Treatment Facility -- 102,473
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
56 Source Gasoline (gallons) Diesel (gallons)
Construction Worker Vehicle Trips
Injection/Monitoring/Production Wells 8,667 --
Water Distribution and Sewer Pipelines – Phase I 4,290 -- Water Distribution Pipelines – Phase II 1,430 --
Agricultural Irrigation Pipelines1 2,860 --
Advanced Treatment Facility 8,826 --
Total – Modified Project 26,073 305,110
Total – Original Project1 18,081 356,331
Net Change in Fuel Consumption 7,992 (51,221)
( ) denotes a negative number
1 Energy consumption estimate sourced from Table 4.4-4 of the certified EIR. The Modified Project would not result in changes to the characteristics of the agricultural irrigation pipelines under the Original Project; therefore, energy consumption for this component would remain the same as that estimated for the Original Project.
See Appendix A for updated energy calculation sheets.
Similar to the Original Project, energy use during construction of the Modified Project would be temporary in nature, and construction equipment used would be typical of similar-sized construction projects in the region. In addition, contractors would be required to comply with the provisions of 13 California Code of Regulations Sections 2449 and 2485, which prohibit diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles and off-road diesel vehicles from idling for more than five minutes, which would minimize unnecessary fuel consumption. Construction equipment would be subject to the U.S. EPA Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency Standard (40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1039, 1065, and 1068), which would minimize inefficient fuel consumption. Electrical power would be consumed during construction activities, and the demand, to the extent required, would be supplied from existing electrical infrastructure in the area.
Overall, construction activities under the Modified Project would utilize fuel-efficient equipment consistent with state and federal regulations and would comply with state measures to reduce the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Construction contractors would not be expected to utilize fuel in a manner that is wasteful or unnecessary as a business practice to ensure cost efficiency. Moreover, the use of energy to construct the Modified Project would not be unnecessary because the project is intended to resolve an existing issue by stabilizing and protecting groundwater supplies from seawater intrusion. Therefore, construction of the Modified Project would not result in potentially significant environmental effects due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and as with the Original Project, no impact would occur. The Modified Project thus would not result in new significant impacts associated with construction- related energy consumption and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
OPERATION
The Modified Project would not result in changes to the operational characteristics of the Original Project related to energy consumption.17 Therefore, operational energy consumption under the
17 The minor increase of 0.1 mgd of initial and final production capacity at the ATF would not result in a change in electricity consumption under the Modified Project because the ATF would still treat the same volume of secondary effluent flows from the Pismo Beach and SSLOCSD WWTPs as under the Original Project. In addition, CalEEMod does not calculate or attribute emissions of criteria pollutants from
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 57
Modified Project would remain the same as that estimated for the Original Project in Table 4.4-5 of the certified EIR. As with the Original Project, this energy consumption would not be inefficient, unnecessary, or wasteful because the proposed project would stabilize and protect the existing local water supply and would preclude the need for the NCMA agencies to compensate for the decreased availability of local groundwater supplies due to water quality degradation by importing additional future water supplies (beyond those already planned to accommodate growth), which would have a greater energy intensity than existing water supplies. Therefore, similar to the Original Project, no operational energy consumption impact would occur under the Modified Project. The Modified Project thus would not result in new significant impacts associated with operational energy consumption and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Plans
Similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would be potentially inconsistent with the renewable energy and energy efficiency measures, goals, and policies of the City of Pismo Beach’s Climate Action Plan and the City of Grover Beach’s General Plan. In particular, the Modified Project may be inconsistent with Measure C-4 and Action C-4.2 of the City of Pismo Beach’s Climate Action Plan, which require installation of renewable energy projects at select City government facilities, as well as Goal LU-27 and associated policies LU-27.4, LU-27.5, and LU-27.6 of the City of Grover Beach’s General Plan, which require reducing GHG emissions from new development by promoting Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Silver standards for new non-residential buildings, siting and design features to maximize passive solar heating and opportunities for installation of solar panels, and energy-saving elements. Therefore, as with the Original Project, implementation of Mitigation Measures E-2 and GHG-2 would be required for the Modified Project to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Similar to the Original Project, adherence to these mitigation measures would achieve consistency with the renewable energy and energy efficiency measures, goals, and policies City of Pismo Beach’s Climate Action Plan and the City of Grover Beach’s General Plan.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts related to consistency with renewable energy and energy efficiency plans and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new significant or substantially more severe effects would occur related to energy, and no new mitigation measures are necessary. Impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated from the certified EIR.
As with the Original Project, Mitigation Measure E-2 included in Section 4.4, Energy, of the certified EIR as well as Mitigation Measure GHG-2 included in Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the certified EIR would be required for the Modified Project to reduce potential energy impacts to a less- than-significant level. Mitigation Measure E-2 is shown below, and Mitigation Measure GHG-2 is shown in Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions of this Addendum.
E-2 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Measures
The proposed project shall implement the following energy efficiency and renewable energy measures:
electricity generation to individual projects because fossil fuel power plants are existing stationary sources permitted by air districts and/or the USEPA, and they are subject to local, state and federal control measures. Criteria pollutant emissions from power plants are associated with the power plants themselves, and not individual projects or electricity users.
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
58 The ATF building shall incorporate LEED Silver design standards, such as outdoor and indoor water-efficiency features, energy-efficiency and conservation features, energy metering, demand response technologies and programs, and renewable energy systems, where feasible. The orientation of the ATF building shall be designed to accomplish the following to the maximum extent practicable:
Maximize passive solar heating during cool seasons
Avoid solar heat gain in warm seasons
Enhance natural ventilation and effective use of daylight Maximize opportunities for the installation of solar panels Facilitate the use of sunlight for direct heating and illumination whenever possible Take advantage of natural ventilation and shading to cool a building The ATF building shall use exterior shading devices, skylights, daylighting controls, high performance glazing that allows the transmission of light with minimal heat gain, and high thermal mass building components to the extent feasible.
Conclusion
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation (Same as Certified EIR)
4.5 Environmental Justice
Impact Analysis
Original Central Coast Blue Project
The certified EIR determined the Original Project would result in potentially significant environmental justice impacts due to localized construction and operational impacts related to air pollutant emissions, the use of hazardous materials, noise, and traffic to the environmental justice communities of Oceano and Grover Beach. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-2(a), AQ- 2(b), HAZ-1(a), HAZ-1(b), N-1, N-2, N-4, and T-1 outlined in the certified EIR, the Original Project would not result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts to Oceano and Grover Beach.
Modified Central Coast Blue Project
The Modified Project would affect largely the same area as the Original Project within the communities of Oceano and Grover Beach. Although poverty rates in Oceano and Grover Beach have fallen below the poverty rates of San Luis Obispo County and California since the time of the certified EIR, both communities still have minority populations that are greater than 50 percent (United States Census Bureau 2021a, 2021b, and 2021c). Therefore, both communities are still considered to be environmental justice communities.
As discussed throughout this Addendum, construction and operation of the Modified Project would result in similar localized environmental impacts related to air pollutant emissions, the use of hazardous materials, noise, and traffic as the Original Project. Mitigation Measures AQ-2(a), AQ-2(b), HAZ-1(a), HAZ-1(b), N-1, N-2, N-4, and T-1 would continue to apply to the Modified Project to reduce these localized impacts to less-than-significant levels with the exception of the significant and unavoidable construction noise impacts associated with 24-hour well drilling activities. As with the
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 59
Original Project, the significant and unavoidable construction noise impact under the Modified Project would be evenly distributed throughout the Modified Project area across the proposed well locations, not focused on a single area. As such, this impact would not affect one area or population more than another. Furthermore, construction noise impacts would be short-term, temporary, and typical of construction projects occurring throughout the region, which often generate temporary increases in noise. Therefore, although this impact would affect the environmental justice communities of Oceano and Grover Beach, this impact would not be disproportionately high and adverse. As such, with implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in the certified EIR, the Modified Project would not result in disproportionately high impacts on minority, low income, or disadvantaged communities.
Accordingly, the Modified Project would not result in new significant environmental justice impacts and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new significant or substantially more severe effects associated with environmental justice would occur, and no new mitigation measures are necessary. Impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated from the certified EIR. As with the Original Project, Mitigation Measures AQ-2(a), AQ-2(b), HAZ-1(a), HAZ-1(b), N-1, N-2, N-4, and T-1, of the certified EIR would be required for the Modified Project to reduce potential impacts to environmental justice communities to a less- than-significant level. The text of these mitigation measures is reproduced in their respective sections of this Addendum.
Conclusion
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated (Same as Certified EIR)
4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact Analysis
Methodology
GHG emissions associated with construction of the Modified Project were estimated using CalEEMod, version 2022.1 and RCEM, version 9.0 with the assumptions described under Section 4.1, Air Quality.
No changes to operational characteristics would occur under the Modified Project as compared to the Original Project; therefore, no quantitative operational emissions modeling was completed.18 Consistent with the GHG emissions modeling completed for the Original Project in the certified EIR, construction emissions under the Modified Project were amortized over a 25-year project lifetime and added to annual operational GHG emissions to calculate a combined total annual emissions quantity.
18 The minor increase of 0.1 mgd of initial and final production capacity at the ATF would not result in a change in electricity consumption under the Modified Project because the ATF would still treat the same volume of secondary effluent flows from the Pismo Beach and SSLOCSD WWTPs as under the Original Project. In addition, CalEEMod does not calculate or attribute emissions of criteria pollutants from electricity generation to individual projects because fossil fuel power plants are existing stationary sources permitted by air districts and/or the USEPA, and they are subject to local, state and federal control measures. Criteria pollutant emissions from power plants are associated with the power plants themselves, and not individual projects or electricity users.
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
60 Original Central Coast Blue Project
The certified EIR determined the Original Project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment because the Original Project would be consistent with the goals of CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan to develop more reliable, resilient, diversified, and sustainably managed water supplies; reuse water more efficiently through water recycling and reuse, and reduce the carbon footprint of water systems. The certified EIR determined the Original Project would be potentially inconsistent with the City of Pismo Beach’s Climate Action Plan. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-2 outlined in Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the certified EIR, impacts related to consistency with GHG reduction plans, policies, and regulations would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Modified Central Coast Blue Project
GHG EMISSIONS
As with the Original Project, construction of the Modified Project would generate temporary GHG emissions primarily from diesel-powered construction equipment as well as from vehicles transporting construction workers to and from the project area and heavy trucks transporting building materials, construction equipment, and soil. As described in Section 2, Background and Project Description, construction activities would occur in two phases. Phase I would consist of the construction of four injection wells (IW-1, IW-2A, IW-3, and IW-4 Alternate or IW-5A), 11 monitoring wells, one production well, the pipelines conveying secondary treated effluent from the Pismo Beach WWTP to the ATF, the concentrate pipeline, the purified water distribution pipelines, and the ATF complex. Phase II would include construction of the remaining three injection wells (IW-2B, IW-4 Alternate or IW-5A, and IW-5B), purified water pipelines to connect the new wells to the existing purified water distribution system, the pipeline conveying secondary treated effluent from the SSLOCSD WWTP to the ATF, the agricultural irrigation pipelines, and expansion upgrades to the ATF complex. (Although it would not be utilized in Phase II, the pipeline from the SSLOCSD WWTP to the ATF could be constructed in Phase I to take advantage of cost efficiencies of installing two pipelines in parallel [with the purified water pipeline from the AWPF to IW-5A] and to minimize local impacts from construction. Whether this pipeline is constructed in Phase I or Phase II would not have a substantial effect on the magnitude of the Modified Project’s construction-related GHG emissions.) Estimated GHG emissions for both Phases I and II of construction of the Modified Project are summarized in Table 9. As shown therein, construction of the Modified Project would generate approximately 3,772 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) in total, or approximately 151 MT of CO2e per year when amortized over a 25-year period (the assumed project lifetime per SLO County APCD guidance). The Modified Project would thus result in a decrease of approximately 7 MT of CO2e per year of amortized construction emissions as compared to the Original Project, primarily due to more accurate construction equipment and vehicle trip parameters developed in support of CalEEMod 2022.1, which are utilized in the GHG emissions modeling completed in support of this Addendum.
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 61
Table 9 Estimated GHG Emissions during Construction (Phases I and II) – Modified Project
Project Component
Modified Project
Emissions
(MT of CO2e)
Original Project
Emissions
(MT of CO2e)1
Net Change in
Emissions
(MT of CO2e)
Injection, Monitoring, and Production Wells2 1,600.4 2,370.4 (770.0) Water Distribution and Sewer Pipelines 945.1 280.0 665.1 Agricultural Irrigation Pipelines3 556.1 556.1 0
Advanced Treatment Facility4 670.0 752.2 (82.2)
Total 3,771.6 3,958.7 (187.1)
Amortized over project lifetime (25 years) 150.9 158.3 (7.4) ( ) indicates a negative number
MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalents; GHG = greenhouse gas; CalEEMod = California Emissions Estimator Model; RCEM = Roadway Construction Emissions Model
1 Source: Table 4.6-2 of the certified EIR
2 Emissions from installation one injection/production well were modeled, then multiplied by 8 (seven injection wells and one production well), and emissions from installation of one monitoring well were modeled, then multiplied by 11. These emissions were summed to estimate total GHG emissions from construction activities for injection, production, and monitoring wells. 3 GHG emissions estimate sourced from Table 4.6-2 of the certified EIR. The Modified Project would not result in changes to the characteristics of the agricultural irrigation pipelines under the Original Project; therefore, GHG emissions generated by construction of this component would remain the same as those estimated for the Original Project. 4 Phase II of construction would include expansion upgrades at the ATF complex; however, emissions from these activities were not modeled because upgrades would primarily be completed using small hand tools and not large emission-generating construction equipment.
Notes: All emissions modeling was completed using CalEEMod and RCEM. See Appendix A for updated modeling results.
As with the Original Project, the Modified Project would generate long-term GHG emissions from new vehicle trips (mobile emissions), use of electricity and natural gas (energy emissions), solid waste disposal, water use, and landscaping equipment (area emissions). No changes in the operational characteristics of the Original Project would occur under the Modified Project that would affect operational GHG emissions; therefore, operational GHG emissions would remain the same as those of the Original Project. Table 10 summarizes and combines the amortized construction and operational GHG emissions associated with the Modified Project for year 2030 (next milestone GHG target year per the 2017 Scoping Plan). As shown therein, combined annual GHG emissions would be approximately 1,695 MT of CO2e per year. The Modified Project would thus result in a decrease of approximately 7 MT of CO2e per year as compared to the Original Project, which would be attributable to changes in the construction characteristics under the Modified Project.
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
62 Table 10 Combined Annual GHG Emissions – Modified Project Emission Source
Modified Project Emissions
(MT of CO2e per year)
Original Project Emissions
(MT of CO2e per year)1
Net Change in Emissions
(MT of CO2e per year)
Construction 150.9 158.3 (7.4)
Operational2
Area <0.1 <0.1 0
Energy
ATF Building 62.0 62.0 0
ATF Treatment Process
and Pump Station 1,082.7 1,082.7
0 Groundwater Pumping 346.5 346.5 0
Mobile
CO2 and CH4 29.1 29.1 0
N2O 1.1 1.1 0
Solid Waste 15.6 15.6 0
Water 7.2 7.2 0
Total Emissions 1,695.1 1,702.5 (7.4)
( ) indicates a negative number
MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalents; ATF = advanced treatment facility complex; CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CalEEMod = California Emissions Estimator Model; RCEM = Roadway Construction Emissions Model 1 Source: Table 4.6-3 of the certified EIR
2 Because the Modified Project would not result in changes to the operational characteristics of the Original Project, the operational emissions of the Modified Project were assumed to be the same as those estimated for the Original Project in the certified EIR (see Table 4.6-3 of the certified EIR).
See Appendix A for updated CalEEMod and RCEM results.
Similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would improve water supply reliability through water recycling and reuse; create a sustainable, drought-resistant local water supply for southern San Luis Obispo County; and provide a new source of recharge to the SMGB to protect the basin from degradation via seawater intrusion. In doing so, the proposed project would stabilize and protect the existing local water supply and would reduce the need for the NCMA agencies to compensate for the decreased availability of local groundwater supplies due to water quality degradation by importing additional future water supplies, such as State Water Project supplies, (beyond those already planned to accommodate growth), which would have a greater energy intensity and associated GHG emissions than existing water supplies. Furthermore, as shown in Table 10, the majority of GHG emissions associated with the Modified Project would be generated by electricity used to power the treatment process and pump station. Therefore, as the requirements of the Renewables Portfolio Standard continue to phase in through 2045, annual GHG emissions generated by operation would decrease correspondingly. As a result, as with the Original Project, the Modified Project would be consistent with the State’s long-term climate goals and strategies as outlined in the 2017 Scoping Plan, and impacts related to GHG emissions would be less than significant. Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts related to GHG emissions and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
GHG EMISSION REDUCTION PLANS, POLICIES, AND REGULATIONS Similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would be potentially inconsistent with the City of Pismo Beach’s Climate Action Plan. In particular, the Modified Project may be inconsistent with
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 63
Measure C-4 and Action C-4.2, which require installation of renewable energy projects at select City government facilities, as well as Measure C-7 and Action C-7.2, which requires installation of recycling facilities at City-owned or operated facilities, because these features are not currently part of the project design. Therefore, as with the Original Project, implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-2 would be required for the Modified Project to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Similar to the Original Project, adherence to this mitigation measure would achieve consistency with the City of Pismo Beach’s Climate Action Plan. Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts related to consistency with GHG emission reduction plans, policies, and regulations and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new significant or substantially more severe effects related to GHG emissions would occur, and no new mitigation measures are necessary. Impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated from the certified EIR.
As with the Original Project, Mitigation Measure GHG-2 included in Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the certified EIR would be required for the Modified Project to reduce potential impacts related to GHG emissions to a less-than-significant level.
GHG-2 GHG Emission Reduction Measures
The proposed project shall implement the following GHG emission reduction measures, as identified in the City’s Climate Action Plan:
The ATF complex shall include a solar photovoltaic system. The ATF complex shall include recycling receptacles.
Conclusion
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation (Same as Certified EIR)
4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact Analysis
Original Central Coast Blue Project
The certified EIR determined construction and operation of the Original Project would increase the routine transport and use of hazardous materials in the project area but would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The certified EIR also determined the Original Project would potentially result in release of hazardous materials through reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions during both construction and operation of the project. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1(a), HAZ-1(b), BIO-3(c), and HWQ-1 outlined in Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Section 4.2, Biological Resources, and Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, respectively, of the certified EIR, impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.
The certified EIR determined the Original Project would handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school during construction activities and that there would be potential for an accidental release of these materials. However,
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
64 with implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1(a) outlined in Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
The certified EIR did not identify active hazardous materials/wastes sites within the Original Project area and concluded no impact related to such sites would occur. The certified EIR also determined the Original Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise exposure from the Oceano County Airport and that such impacts would be less than significant. In addition, the certified EIR determined the Original Project would result in no impacts related to wildland fires because the Original Project area is generally not at elevated risk for wildland fires.
The certified EIR concluded the Original Project would potentially interfere with an adopted emergency plan or evacuation plan during construction activities due to work within public roadway rights-of-way that could result in temporary lane or road closures. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure T-1 as described in Section 4.11, Transportation, of the certified EIR, impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Construction activities under the Modified Project would be similar in nature to those of the Original Project and would continue to be subject to provisions of the California Building Code as well as state and federal laws and local policies. No changes to operational characteristics as they relate to hazards and hazardous materials would occur under the Modified Project as compared to the Original Project.
As a result, the Modified Project would result in similar impacts related to the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction and operation. As with the Original Project, impacts related to the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant. Impacts related to the release of hazardous materials through reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions during construction and operation and related to the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials within 0.25 mile of a school during construction activities would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures HAZ-1(a), HAZ-1(b), BIO-3(c), and HWQ -1 would continue to apply to construction and operational activities for the Modified Project and would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level.
No active hazardous materials/waste contamination sites were identified within the Modified Project area (SWRCB 2023; Department of Toxic Substances Control 2023; USEPA 2023).
Similar to the Original Project, several components of the Modified Project would be located within the boundaries of the Oceano County Airport Land Use Plan (San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission 2007). However, compliance with the requirements of the Airport Review Area combining designation would ensure no safety hazards would occur as a result of the Modified Project. In addition, some components of the Modified Project would be located within the single- event noise level contours for the Oceano County Airport. MW-3A/3B, MW-4C/4D, and some pipelines would be located within the 65 dBA single-event noise level contour; IW-4 Alternate, MW- 4A/4B, MW-5D/5E/5F, MW-NCMA North A/B/C, and some pipelines would be located within the 75 dBA single-event noise level contour; and IW-5A, IW-5B, MW-5A/5B/5C, and some pipelines would be located within the 85 dBA single-event noise level contour and within Oceano County Airport. As with the Original Project, construction workers and operations staff would be intermittently exposed to elevated noise levels during aircraft take-off and landing events at the Oceano County Airport.
However, construction workers and operations staff would be protected from high noise levels by compliance with California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal OSHA) regulations. In addition, operations staff would primarily work indoors at the ATF complex, which is outside the single event noise contours for the airport, and staff completing outdoor operations and maintenance
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 65
activities at wells and pipelines within the single event noise contours would be exposed infrequently to high noise levels during aircraft takeoff and landing events with the option to seek a quieter noise environment inside the SSLOCSD WWTP building or their vehicles, if desired, to reduce exposure to aircraft noise. Therefore, as with the Original Project, impacts related to airport hazards under the Modified Project would be less than significant.
Similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would potentially interfere with an adopted emergency plan or evacuation plan during construction activities due to work within public roadway rights-of-way that could result in temporary lane or road closures. Mitigation Measure T-1 would continue to apply to construction activities for the Modified Project and would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
The Modified Project area would remain largely the same as the Original Project area with the addition of an approximately 0.5-acre area immediately adjacent to the southwestern boundary of the Original Project area. As such, the Modified Project area is similarly not at elevated risk for wildland fires. As with the Original Project, no impacts related to wildland fires would occur under the Modified Project.
In light of the above discussion, the Modified Project would result in no new significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials or significant impacts that would be substantially more severe than those discussed in the certified EIR.
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new significant or substantially more severe effects associated with hazards and hazardous materials would occur, and no new mitigation measures are necessary. Impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated from the certified EIR.
As with the Original Project, Mitigation Measures HAZ-1(a) and HAZ-1(b) outlined in Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Mitigation Measure BIO-3(c) outlined in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, and Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 outlined in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the certified EIR would be required for the Modified Project to reduce potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measures HAZ-1(a) and HAZ-1(b) are shown below, and Mitigation Measures BIO-3(c) and HWQ-1 are included in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, and Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Addendum, respectively.
HAZ-1(a) Hazardous Materials Management and Spill Prevention and Control Plan Prior to the start of construction, the construction contractor(s) shall prepare a Hazardous Materials Management and Spill Prevention and Control Plan that includes a project-specific contingency plan for hazardous materials and waste operations. The Plan shall be applicable to construction activities and shall establish policies and procedures according to applicable codes and regulations, including but not limited to the California Building and Fire Codes and federal and Cal OSHA regulations, to minimize risks associated with hazardous materials spills. Elements of the Plan shall include, but would not be limited to the following:
A discussion of hazardous materials management, including delineation of hazardous material storage areas, access and egress routes, waterways, emergency assembly areas, and temporary hazardous waste storage areas;
Notification and documentation of procedures; and
Spill control and countermeasures, including employee spill prevention/response training.
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
66 HAZ-1(b) Preparation of Hazardous Materials Business Plan A Hazardous Materials Business Plan shall be prepared for the ATF complex. The Hazardous Materials Business Plan shall include, at a minimum, a hazardous materials inventory, site plan, emergency response plan, and requirements for employee training. The Hazardous Materials Business Plan shall be prepared prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the ATF complex. The Hazardous Materials Business Plan shall inform staff and contractors of the chemicals that may be used at the site and how to respond to potential hazardous material emergencies or exposure. Signage specified in the Hazardous Materials Business Plan shall be posted at the ATF complex and at associated chemical storage areas, and a copy of the hazardous materials inventory, site plan, and emergency response plan shall be kept at each chemical storage area. The hazardous materials inventory shall be consistent with chemicals ordered during operation and maintenance of the ATF complex.
Conclusion
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated (Same as Certified EIR)
4.8 Hydrology/Water Quality
Impact Analysis
Original Central Coast Blue Project
The certified EIR determined the Original Project would result in potentially significant impacts to water quality due to trenchless installation of agricultural irrigation pipelines under Arroyo Grande Creek and to marine water quality due to an exceedance of the radioactive toxicity screening level in the reverse osmosis concentrate that is proposed for discharge via the existing ocean outfall.
However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-3(c) and HWQ-1, outlined in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, and Section 4.8, Hydrology/Water Quality, of the certified EIR, respectively, these impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. The certified EIR also determined impacts to groundwater quality and public health under the Original Project would be less than significant.
The certified EIR determined the Original Project would not result in adverse impacts to groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge such that sustainable management of the groundwater basin would not be impeded because the Original Project would recharge the SMGB and would not result in changes to the pumping entitlements of the SMGB Adjudication Judgment or in significant adverse impacts to groundwater storage or surface water levels in Arroyo Grande Creek.
The certified EIR determined the Original Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to alterations of the existing drainage patterns of the Original Project area such that substantial erosion/siltation, flooding on and off site, an exceedance of the capacity of stormwater drainage systems, or generation of substantial additional polluted runoff would occur due to regulatory compliance with state, regional, and local requirements. In addition, the certified EIR determined the Original Project would not introduce facilities in flood or tsunami hazard areas that would have the potential to impede or redirect flood flows or risk release of pollutants due to project inundation and that such impacts would be less than significant.
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 67
Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Construction and operational activities under the Modified Project would be similar in nature to those of the Original Project and would continue to be subject to state, regional and local laws and regulations related to soil erosion, stormwater runoff, and surface water quality, including the NPDES Construction General Permit, NPDES No. CAG993002 (Order No. R3-2016-0035 for discharges of highly treated groundwater), the Central Coast Post-Construction Stormwater Requirements (Central Coast RWQCB Order R3-2013-0032), and local stormwater management programs and municipal code requirements. As a result, the Modified Project would result in less-than-significant impacts to surface water quality with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3(c) for impacts associated with trenchless installation of agricultural irrigation pipelines under Arroyo Grande Creek (this component remains unchanged under the Modified Project). The Modified Project would also be subject to the same regulatory requirements under Title 22 as the Original Project related to the injection of advanced purified water into the groundwater basin, including acquisition of a Waste Discharge Requirements permit, which would ensure the Modified Project would result in less-than- significant impacts to groundwater quality and public and environmental health.
Under the Modified Project, the initial and final production capacity of the ATF complex would be approximately 0.1 mgd greater than under the Original Project; however, the volume of reverse osmosis concentrate discharged via the existing ocean outfall would not increase because the ATF would still treat the same volume of secondary effluent flows from the Pismo Beach and SSLOCSD WWTPs as under the Original Project. The reverse osmosis concentrate discharge as well as the backwash water discharge from the ATF complex and certain injection wells under the Modified Project would continue to be required to comply with the water quality standards, monitoring, and reporting requirements of the NPDES permits for the Pismo Beach and SSLOCSD WWTPs (Permit No.
CA0048151, Order No. R3-2015-0016 and Permit No. CA0048003, Order No. R3-2019-0002), which are protective of marine water quality. Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 would continue to be required for the Modified Project to address potential exceedances of the radioactive toxicity standard, which would reduce potential impacts to marine water quality to a less-than-significant level.
As with the Original Project, the Modified Project would require temporary groundwater pumping during well development as part of construction activities that would not exceed the groundwater pumping entitlements established in the SMGB Adjudication Judgment. In addition, similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would involve recharge of the SMGB and creation of a seawater intrusion barrier to protect the existing groundwater supply through injection of advanced purified water treated to Title 22 standards and would thus have a beneficial impact on the groundwater basin. In addition, as with the Original Project, the Modified Project would enable the Cities of Pismo Beach, Grover Beach, and Arroyo Grande to extract up to their full entitlement of groundwater allowed under the SMGB Adjudication Judgment and ultimately result in a net benefit to groundwater storage under Phase II due to increased groundwater recharge. Furthermore, as discussed in Section
4.2, Biological Resources, of this Addendum, the Modified Project would not result in significant adverse impacts to surface water levels in Arroyo Grande Creek. Therefore, similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Modified Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin, and no impact would occur.
Similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would result in alterations to existing drainage patterns due to the introduction of new impervious surfaces associated with project facilities.
However, the Modified Project would also be required to comply with state, regional, and local laws and regulations that would minimize erosion, siltation, and stormwater runoff during construction
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
68 and operation. Therefore, as with the Original Project, the Modified Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area such that substantial erosion/siltation, flooding on and off site, an exceedance of the capacity of stormwater drainage systems, or the generation of substantial additional polluted runoff would occur.
Like the Original Project, several components of the Modified Project would be located within a flood hazard area, which is defined as the 100-year floodplain and 500-year floodplain. Under the Modified Project, IW-4 Alternate, IW-5A, IW-5B, MW-5A/5B/5C, MW-NCMA North A/B/C, MW-NCMA South A/B/C, and most of the pipelines would be located within a 100-year floodplain (Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] 2017). No Modified Project components are located within a 500-year flood zone. All Modified Project components would also be located in a tsunami zone (DOC 2023).
The nature of the injection wells, monitoring wells, and pipelines would be the same under the Modified Project as under the Original Project and thus would not impede or redirect flood flows or risk release of pollutants in the event of inundation due to design features and regulatory compliance.
Therefore, as with the Original Project, impacts related to flood flows and release of pollutants during inundation would be less than significant under the Modified Project.
In light of the above discussion, the Modified Project would result in no new significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality or significant impacts that would be substantially more severe than those discussed in the certified EIR.
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new significant or substantially more severe effects associated with hydrology and water quality would occur, and no new mitigation measures are necessary. Impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated from the certified EIR.
As with the Original Project, Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 outlined in Section 4.8, Hydrology/Water Quality, of the certified EIR would be required for the Modified Project to reduce potential impacts to marine water quality to a less-than-significant level with minor clarifications as shown in strikeout/underline format below.19
HWQ-1 Initial Quarterly Radioactivity Testing
Initial quarterly monitoring of reverse osmosis concentrate will be conducted at the full-scale facility for the first year of operation to establish future monitoring requirements and possible additional analysis of beta/photon emitters. If monitoring detects violations of the maximum contaminant level for radioactivity specified by California Code of Regulations Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15, Article 5, Section 64443 occur, these exceedances shall be resolved. Potential treatment process to resolve identified exceedances would include, but would not be limited to, ion exchange, lime softening, and coagulation filtration. Source control could also be used to resolve identified exceedances.
Conclusion
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated (Same as Certified EIR)
19 Mitigation Measure BIO-3(c) would continue to apply to the proposed agricultural irrigation pipelines, which have not changed under the Modified Project, to reduce impacts to the surface water quality of Arroyo Grande Creek during construction activities to a less-than- significant level.
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 69
4.9 Land Use/Planning
Impact Analysis
Original Central Coast Blue Project
The certified EIR determined the Original Project would not construct or alter roadways or other features in such a manner that would physically divide a community, and no impact would occur. The certified EIR also concluded the Original Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to a conflict with a land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect because it may not be feasible to reduce all construction noise impacts that would potentially conflict with local noise standards below the applicable thresholds.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-2(a) through CR-2(d), BIO-3(a) through BIO-3(c), HAZ-1(a), HAZ-1(b), N-1, and N-2 were required to reduce impacts under the Original Project to the extent feasible.
Modified Central Coast Blue Project
As with the Original Project, the Modified Project would not construct or alter roadways or other features in such a manner that would physically divide a community, and no impact would occur.
Similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would be located within the land use and coastal development permitting authorities of the City of Grover Beach, County of San Luis Obispo, and CCC.
The purpose of the Modified Project would be the same as that of the Original Project; thus, the Modified Project would support the same objectives of the Grover Beach General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element and San Luis Obispo County General Plan as those outlined in Section 4.9, Land Use/Planning, of the certified EIR for the Original Project. Modified Project components would be considered public and quasi-public land uses in Grover Beach, which are allowed with a use permit in all zones except for Coastal Open Space, Coastal Golf Course, Coastal Pedestrian Beach, and Coastal Vehicular Beach zones. No Modified Project components would be located in these restricted zones.
In addition, all Modified Project components in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County would be installed in the public rights-of-way, which do not have a General Plan or zoning designation, or on properties zoned for Public Facilities. As discussed throughout this Addendum, the Modified Project would not result in significant impacts related to recreation, cultural resources, airport hazards and noise, wetlands, and flood hazard zones with implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-2(a) through CR-2(d), BIO-3(b), and BIO-3(c). As a result, similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would be consistent with local policies and regulations adopted to protect these environmental resources.
Similar to the Original Project, coordination with property owners would occur to minimize interference with use of Oceano Campground, Oceano Park, and the SSLOCSD WWTP, such as adjusting the construction schedule to occur when use of the properties is less frequent or less intensive. In addition, as discussed in Section 4.11, Transportation, of this Addendum, implementation of Mitigation Measure T-1 would be required for the Modified Project to address potentially significant transportation impacts that could temporarily interfere with existing land uses.
As with the Original Project, construction of the injection, monitoring, and production wells under the Modified Project would create temporary noise impacts that could temporarily interfere with existing land uses and potentially conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations, and implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 would be required. As discussed in Section 4.10, Noise, of this Addendum, residents in Grover Beach and unincorporated San Luis Obispo County that live near the proposed well locations may voluntarily choose not to temporary relocate during 24-hour well
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
70 drilling activities and would be exposed to a significant temporary increase in ambient noise levels in excess of the specified thresholds, which are based on compliance with the San Luis Obispo County Code and Grover Beach Municipal Code. Therefore, as with the Original Project, construction noise during 24-hour well drilling activities would conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations, and this impact would be significant and unavoidable under the Modified Project.
For the reasons stated above, the Modified Project would result in no new significant impacts related to land use and planning or significant impacts that would be substantially more severe than those discussed in the certified EIR.
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new significant or substantially more severe effects associated with land use and planning would occur, and no new mitigation measures are necessary. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable with mitigation incorporated from the certified EIR.
As with the Original Project, Mitigation Measures CR-2(a) through CR-2(d), BIO-3(b), BIO-3(c), HAZ- 1(a), HAZ-1(b), and N-1 of the certified EIR would reduce potential impacts to land use/planning to the extent feasible. The text of these mitigation measures is reproduced in their respective sections of this Addendum. Mitigation Measure BIO-3(a) included in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, of the certified EIR has been completed through preparation of a Jurisdictional Delineation (Appendix C). In addition, Mitigation Measure N-2 in Section 4.10, Noise, of the certified EIR is no longer necessary has been completed through preparation of an acoustical analysis in Section 4.10, Noise, of this Addendum and is thus not necessary to mitigate Modified Project impacts.
Conclusion
No Impact for Physical Division of a Community, Significant and Unavoidable Impact for Conflicts with Land Use Plans, Policies, and Regulations (Same as Certified EIR)
4.10 Noise
Overview of Noise and Vibration
Noise levels are commonly measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The A-weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound pressure levels so that they are consistent with the human hearing response. Sound changes in both level and frequency spectrum as it travels from the source to the receiver. Noise levels from a point source (e.g., construction, industrial machinery, air conditioning units) typically attenuate, or drop off, at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise from a line source (e.g., roadway, pipeline, railroad) typically attenuates at about 3 dBA per doubling of distance (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2013).
Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; the amount of attenuation provided by this “shielding” depends on the size of the object and the frequencies of the noise levels.
The impact of noise is not a function of loudness alone. The time of day when noise occurs and the duration of the noise are also important factors of project noise impact. Most noise that lasts for more than a few seconds is variable in its intensity. Consequently, a variety of noise descriptors have been developed. The equivalent noise level (Leq) is one of the most frequently-used noise metrics; it considers both duration and sound power level. The Leq is defined as the single steady-state A-weighted sound level equal to the average sound energy over a time period. When no time period
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 71
is specified, a 1-hour period is assumed. The Lmax is the highest noise level within the sampling period, and the Lmin is the lowest noise level within the measuring period.
Groundborne vibration of concern in environmental analysis consists of the oscillatory waves that move from a source through the ground to adjacent buildings or structures and vibration energy may propagate through the buildings or structures. Vibration may be felt, may manifest as an audible low- frequency rumbling noise (referred to as groundborne noise), and may cause windows, items on shelves, and pictures on walls to rattle. Although groundborne vibration is sometimes noticeable in outdoor environments, it is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors. The primary concern from vibration is that it can be intrusive and annoying to building occupants at vibration-sensitive land uses and may cause structural damage.
Current Environmental and Regulatory Setting
As with the Original Project, the Modified Project area is located in Grover Beach and in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, and sensitive receivers within and near the Modified Project area include residential neighborhoods, schools, hotels, motels, nursing homes, libraries, museums, parks, playgrounds, public assembly and entertainment venues, office buildings, restaurants, and Arroyo Grande Community Hospital. Sensitive receivers nearest to the locations of Modified Project components include residential neighborhoods, the Coastal Dunes RV Park and Campground, Oceano Campground, and Oceano Park.
Because project components would be located in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County and Grover Beach, this analysis evaluates the project’s potential noise impacts considering noise standards established by the County of San Luis Obispo and the City of Grover Beach, as outlined in their General Plans, the San Luis Obispo County Code (SLOCC), and the Grover Beach Municipal Code (GBMC).
Specific relevant policies and regulations are detailed in Section 4.10, Noise, of the certified EIR.
Impact Analysis
Construction Noise
ORIGINAL CENTRAL COAST BLUE PROJECT
The certified EIR for the Original Project determined daytime construction noise impacts would be significant because noise levels associated with daytime construction of MW-1C/1D and MW- 2D/2E/2F would exceed the threshold of 80 decibels (dBA) Leq at the nearest sensitive receivers.
However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 outlined in Section 4.10, Noise, of the certified EIR, daytime construction noise impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
The certified EIR for the Original Project also determined noise levels associated with 24-hour well drilling activities would exceed the noise level standards contained in the SLOCC and GBMC. Nighttime construction noise impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable because implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 may not be feasible in all cases and therefore may not reduce nighttime construction noise impacts below the specified thresholds. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a), BIO-1(b), BIO-1(e), and BIO-(j) outlined in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of the certified EIR were also required for the project components with unknown locations (i.e., the new production well and agricultural irrigation pipelines) under the Original Project to reduce indirect nighttime construction noise impacts to special status wildlife species to a less-than-significant level.
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
72 MODIFIED CENTRAL COAST BLUE PROJECT
Similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would require daytime construction activities for all project components as well as nighttime construction activities for injection, monitoring, and production wells. The following subsections evaluate potential daytime and nighttime noise impacts under the Modified Project as compared to the Original Project.
Daytime Construction Noise
Injection, Monitoring, and Production Wells
Under the Modified Project, IW-5A, IW-5B, MW-1C/1D, MW-4C/4D, MW-5A/5B/5C, and MW- 5D/5E/5F would be sited in similar locations as under the Original Project. Therefore, no changes to daytime construction noise impacts for these wells would occur under the Modified Project, and implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 would continue to be required for MW-1C/1D to reduce potentially significant daytime construction noise impacts, as under the Original Project.
Table 11 summarizes daytime well construction noise levels at the nearest sensitive receivers for the remaining injection, monitoring, and production wells, including the identified alternate locations. As shown therein, daytime construction activities for IW-1, IW-3, MW-1A/1B, MW-1A/1B Alternate, MW-1C/1D Alternate, MW-2A/2B/2C, MW-3C/3D, and MW-4A/B under the Modified Project would exceed the daytime construction noise threshold of 80 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive receivers during all construction phases. In addition, daytime construction activities for IW-2 Alternate and MW-2A/2B/2C Alternate under the Modified Project would exceed the daytime construction noise threshold of 80 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive receivers during the well drilling/installation phase.
Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 would also be required for these project components to reduce daytime construction noise impacts to a less-than-significant level. As a result, the Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts associated with daytime construction noise related to the injection and monitoring wells and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
At the time of certification of the certified EIR, the location of the new production well (PB-23) was not known, and a provision was included in Mitigation Measure N-1 to complete an acoustical analysis to determine the construction noise reduction measures necessary to reduce daytime exterior construction noise levels to at or below 80 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive receivers. PB-23 is currently planned to be sited on the northern portion of the ATF complex, approximately 200 feet or more from the nearest sensitive receivers to the south. As shown in Table 11, at this location, daytime construction noise associated with installation of PB-23 would not exceed the daytime construction noise threshold of 80 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive receivers, and no daytime construction noise reduction measures are necessary. Therefore, this provision of Mitigation Measure N-1 has been satisfied. As a result, the Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts associated with daytime construction noise related to the new production well and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 73
Table 11 Daytime Well Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Sensitive Receivers (dBA Leq) – Modified Project Construction Phase Equipment
MW-1A/1B,
MW-1A/1B
Alternate,
MW-1C/1D
Alternate,
(Residences 15
Feet Away)
IW-2 Alternate,
IW-3, MW-
2A/2B/2C
Alternate,
MW-4A/4B
(Residences 40
Feet Away)
IW-1,
MW-2A/2B/2C,
MW-3C/3D
(Residences 80
Feet Away)
IW-2A, IW-2B,
IW-4 Alternate,
PB-23
(Residences 200
Feet Away)
MW-NCMA
North A/B/C,
MW-2D/2E/2F
(Residence 400
Feet Away)
MW-NCMA
South A/B/C
(Residence
2,200 Feet
Away)
Site Preparation Backhoe 85 76 70 62 56 41
Sewer Connection Excavator, Backhoe 89 80 74 66 n/a n/a Well Drilling/Installation Drill Rig, Generators
(4), Air Compressor
96 87 81 73 67 52
Site Restoration Forklift, Backhoe 86 77 71 63 57 42
Threshold 80 80 80 80 80 80
Threshold Exceeded? Yes Yes Yes No No No
dBA = A-weighted decibel; Leq = equivalent noise level; Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level 1 The Lmax value is the maximum instantaneous noise level generated by the loudest single piece of equipment operating during each phase. Unlike average Leq values, which assume multiple pieces of equipment operating within the one-hour averaging period, Lmax values are not summed because it is not assumed that a given piece of equipment would generate its peak noise level at the same time as another piece of equipment.
Note: Assumes a standard attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. See Table 4.10-10 in Section 4.10, Noise, of the certified EIR for construction noise levels by phase at a distance of 50 feet.
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
74 Water Distribution, Sewer, and Agricultural Irrigation Pipelines Similar to the Original Project, pipeline alignments under the Modified Project would be located within 25 feet of sensitive receivers in some areas. As a result, daytime construction noise associated with pipeline installation would be similar to that estimated for the Original Project, as shown in Table
4.10-14 in Section 4.10, Noise, of the certified EIR. Therefore, as with the Original Project, daytime pipeline construction noise levels under the Modified Project at the nearest existing and planned sensitive receivers would not exceed the daytime construction noise threshold of 80 dBA Leq, and impacts would be less than significant. As a result, the Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts associated with daytime construction noise related to pipelines and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
Advanced Treatment Facility Complex
Construction activities at the ATF complex under the Modified Project would require similar equipment as the Original Project and would therefore generate similar noise levels at the nearest sensitive receivers, which are existing residences located along Calvin Court approximately 250 feet southeast of the center of the construction site and undeveloped properties zoned for Coastal Low Density Residential Use approximately 145 feet south of the center of the construction site. Daytime construction noise associated with ATF complex construction under the Modified Project would be similar to that estimated for the Original Project, as shown in Table 4.10-15 in Section 4.10, Noise, of the certified EIR. Therefore, as with the Original Project, daytime ATF construction noise levels under the Modified Project at the nearest existing and planned sensitive receivers would not exceed the daytime construction noise threshold of 80 dBA Leq, and impacts would be less than significant. As a result, the Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts associated with daytime construction noise related to the ATF complex and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
Nighttime Construction Noise
Nighttime construction would only be required for 24-hour well drilling activities associated with the injection, monitoring, and production wells. Noise-sensitive receivers during nighttime hours include residential land uses, transient lodging such as hotels and motels, and recreational land uses with overnight accommodations such as campgrounds. Each injection/production well would require approximately three weeks of 24-hour well drilling activities, and each monitoring well would require approximately two weeks of 24-hour well drilling activities. The length of 24-hour well drilling activities under the Modified Project would be similar to that of the Original Project with the exception that the 24-hour well drilling period for monitoring wells would be reduced by one week.
Under the Modified Project, IW-5A, IW-5B, MW-1C/1D, MW-4C/4D, MW-5A/5B/5C, and MW- 5D/5E/5F would be sited in similar locations as under the Original Project. Therefore, no changes to nighttime construction noise impacts for these wells would occur under the Modified Project, and implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 would continue to be required for these wells to minimize potentially significant nighttime construction noise impacts, as under the Original Project.
Table 12 and Table 13 summarize nighttime exterior construction noise levels during well drilling activities at the nearest sensitive receivers for the remaining injection, monitoring, and production well locations, including the identified alternate locations. As shown therein, nighttime exterior construction noise levels under the Modified Project at the nearest sensitive receivers would exceed the nighttime exterior thresholds for all well locations. Therefore, as with the Original Project,
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 75
implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 would also be required for these components under the Modified Project to reduce nighttime construction noise impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Table 12 Nighttime Well Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Sensitive Receivers – Injection and Production Wells - Modified Project1
Construction Phase Equipment
IW-2 Alternate,
IW-3 (Residences
40 Feet Away)
IW-1
(Residences
80 Feet
Away)
IW-2A, IW-2B, IW-4
Alternate, PB-23
(Residences 200 Feet
Away)
Well Drilling/Installation Drill Rig, Generators (4),
Air Compressor
87 dBA Leq 81 dBA Leq 73 dBA Leq
Thresholds2 55 dBA Leq 55 dBA Leq 55 dBA Leq
Threshold Exceeded? Yes Yes Yes
dBA = A-weighted decibel; Leq = equivalent noise level; Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level 1 The Lmax value is the maximum instantaneous noise level generated by the loudest single piece of equipment operating during each phase. Unlike average Leq values, which assume multiple pieces of equipment operating within the one-hour averaging period, Lmax values are not summed because it is not assumed that a given piece of equipment would generate its peak noise level at the same time as another piece of equipment.
2 Thresholds are applied based on whether the project component is located in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County (Table 4.10-5 in Section 4.10, Noise, of the certified EIR; County of San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element Table 3-2) or the city of Grover Beach (Table 4.10-7 in Section 4.10, Noise, of the certified EIR; GBMC Section 3120.8, Table 1).
Note: Assumes a standard attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. See Table 4.10-10 in Section 4.10, Noise, of the certified EIR for construction noise levels by phase at 50 feet.
At the time of certification of the certified EIR, the location of the new production well (PB-23) was not known, and a provision was included in Mitigation Measure N-1 to complete an acoustical analysis to determine the construction noise reduction measures necessary to reduce nighttime exterior construction noise levels to at or below 55 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive receivers. PB-23 is currently planned to be sited on the northern portion of the ATF complex, approximately 280 feet from the nearest sensitive receivers to the south. As shown in Table 12, at this location, nighttime construction noise associated with installation of PB-23 would exceed the nighttime construction noise threshold of 55 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive receivers. Therefore, additional construction noise reduction measures have been added to Mitigation Measure N-1 to address nighttime construction noise associated with installation of PB-23. The provision of Mitigation Measure N-1 to complete a nighttime construction noise analysis for PB-23 has thus been satisfied.
Modern building construction generally provides an exterior-to-interior noise level reduction of at least 20 dBA with closed windows (Federal Highway Administration 2011). Therefore, exterior construction noise levels greater than 55 dBA Leq and 75 dBA Lmax would potentially result in an exceedance of the nighttime interior noise level thresholds of 35 dBA Leq and 55 dBA Lmax for project components in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County. As shown in Table 12 and Table 13, nighttime exterior construction noise levels for injection, monitoring, and production wells in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County at the nearest sensitive receivers would exceed 55 dBA Leq and 75 dBA Lmax at all well locations except MW-NCMA South A/B/C. Exterior construction noise levels greater than 60 dBA Leq would potentially result in an exceedance of the nighttime interior noise level threshold of 40 dBA Leq for project components in Grover Beach. As shown in Table 12 and Table 13, nighttime exterior construction noise levels for injection, monitoring, and production wells in Grover Beach would exceed 60 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive receivers for all well locations. As a result, similar to the Original Project, nighttime well construction activities under the Modified Project would exceed the nighttime interior noise level thresholds.
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
76 Table 13 Nighttime Well Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Sensitive Receivers – Monitoring Wells - Modified Project1 Construction Phase Equipment
MW-1A/1B,
MW-1A/1B
Alternate,
MW-1C/1D
Alternate
(Residences 15
Feet Away)
MW-4A/4B
(Residences 40
Feet Away)
MW-2A/2B/2C
Alternate
(Residences 40
Feet Away)
MW-2A/2B/2C,
MW-3C/3D
(Residences 80
Feet Away)
MW-2D/2E/2F
(Residences
400 Feet Away)
MW-NCMA
North A/B/C
(Residence 400
Feet Away)
MW-NCMA
South A/B/C
(Residence
2,200 Feet
Away)
Well
Drilling/Installation
Drill Rig,
Generators
(4), Air
Compressor
96 dBA Leq 87 dBA Leq
86 dBA Lmax
87 dBA Leq 81 dBA Leq 67 dBA Leq 67 dBA Leq
66 dBA Lmax
52 dBA Leq
51 dBA Lmax
Threshold2 55 dBA Leq 45 dBA Leq
65 dBA Lmax
55 dBA Leq 55 dBA Leq 55 dBA Leq 45 dBA Leq
65 dBA Lmax
45 dBA Leq
65 dBA Lmax
Threshold
Exceeded?
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes/No
dBA = A-weighted decibel; Leq = equivalent noise level; Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level 1 The Lmax value is the maximum instantaneous noise level generated by the loudest single piece of equipment operating during each phase. Unlike average Leq values, which assume multiple pieces of equipment operating within the one-hour averaging period, Lmax values are not summed because it is not assumed that a given piece of equipment would generate its peak noise level at the same time as another piece of equipment.
2 Thresholds are applied based on whether the project component is located in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County (Table 4.10-5 in Section 4.10, Noise, of the certified EIR; County of San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element Table 3-2) or the city of Grover Beach (Table 4.10-7 in Section 4.10, Noise, of the certified EIR; GBMC Section 3120.8, Table 1).
Note: Assumes a standard attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. See Table 4.10-10 in Section 4.10, Noise, of the certified EIR for construction noise levels by phase at 50 feet.
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 77
In addition to the exceedances identified above for each individual well location, if nighttime well drilling activities for two wells in close proximity to each other (e.g., IW-2A and MW-2A/2B/2C) occur simultaneously, construction noise levels could combine to generate even higher noise levels than those for each individual well. Therefore, given the above analysis, nighttime construction activities would result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels, and impacts would be potentially significant under the Modified Project, as with the Original Project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 would be required to reduce impacts under the Modified Project to the extent feasible. However, similar to the Original Project, implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 for the Modified Project may not be feasible in all cases and therefore may not reduce construction noise impacts below the specified thresholds. Therefore, construction noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable under the Modified Project, as with the Original Project. Accordingly, the Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts associated with nighttime construction noise and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
Operational Noise
ORIGINAL CENTRAL COAST BLUE PROJECT
The certified EIR for the Original Project determined operational noise impacts would be significant because long-term operational noise sources at the ATF complex may result in a substantial long-term increase in ambient noise levels at nearby sensitive receivers in excess of the noise standards established in the GBMC. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure N-2 outlined in Section 4.10, Noise, of the certified EIR, operational noise impacts would be reduced to a less-than- significant level.
MODIFIED CENTRAL COAST BLUE PROJECT
Operation of the Modified Project would generate noise at the ATF complex. Injection and monitoring wells and pipelines would not include noise-generating components and are therefore not discussed further in this analysis. In addition, an approximately 5-hp pump would be installed at the SSLOCSD WWTP that would pump water out of a tank as part of the Modified Project. However, given the size of this pump and the existing ambient levels of noise associated with operation of the SSLOCSD WWTP, noise generated by this component would be negligible and is not discussed further in this analysis.
The primary sources of long-term operational noise at the ATF complex would be a series of 17 pumps, two blowers, two air compressors, HVAC equipment, and an emergency back-up generator. The pumps, blowers, and air compressors would be located inside the ATF building and pumphouse; therefore, noise transmittal from operation of these components would be limited to the building vents/louvers. The HVAC equipment would be located on the roof of the ATF building, and the emergency generator would be located on the central-eastern boundary of the project site.
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
78 Table 14 Reference Noise Levels
Project
Component Quantity Location
Reference
Noise Level1
Average Distance to
Nearest Sensitive
Receiver
Rotary Lobe
Blowers
2 Inside ATF Building 78 dBA Leq at 3 feet 220 feet
Air Compressors 2 Inside ATF Building 75 dBA Leq at 3 feet 215 feet Pumps 11 Inside ATF Building 85 dBA Leq at 3 feet 170 feet Pumps 4 Inside ATF Building 80 dBA Leq at 3 feet 170 feet Pumps 2 Inside Pumphouse 80 dBA Leq at 3 feet 40 feet
HVAC Equipment –
180 MBH2
2 Rooftop of ATF Building 62 dBA Leq at 3 feet 75 feet
HVAC Equipment –
66 MBH3
1 Rooftop of ATF Building 57 dBA Leq at 3 feet 75 feet
HVAC Equipment –
12 MBH3
2 Rooftop of ATF Building 57 dBA Leq at 3 feet 75 feet
Emergency
Generator
1 Central-eastern boundary of ATF
complex inside weather
protective enclosure with sound
attenuation material
60 dBA Leq at 15
feet
130 feet
dBA = A-weighted decibels; Leq = equivalent noise level; MBH = thousand British thermal units per hour (measurement of HVAC capacity)
1 Reference noise levels do not account for interior-exterior attenuation provided by building structures. 2 Based on reference noise level for 192 MBH capacity, which provides a conservative estimate of noise generation. 3 Based on reference noise level for 72 MBH capacity, which provides a conservative estimate of noise generation.
Source: Steele 2023
Existing sensitive receivers nearest to the ATF complex location are residences located along Calvin Court approximately 60 feet southeast of the property boundary. 20 Table 15 summarizes estimated exterior noise levels generated by operation of the ATF complex (including the new production well and during the monthly, daytime emergency generator testing event). As shown therein, operation of the ATF complex would generate daytime and nighttime exterior noise levels of approximately 54 dBA Leq at the nearest noise-sensitive receivers (i.e., residences to the south and southwest of the ATF complex). These noise levels would not exceed the GBMC exterior daytime and nighttime noise level standards for residential uses of 60 dBA Leq and 55 dBA Leq, respectively. In addition, assuming an exterior-to-interior noise level reduction of 20 dBA with windows closed (Federal Highway Administration 2011), operational noise generated by the ATF complex would be approximately 34 dBA Leq, which would not exceed the GBMC interior daytime and nighttime noise level standards for residential uses of 45 dBA Leq and 40 dBA Leq, respectively. Accordingly, the Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts associated with operational noise generated by the ATF complex and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
20 There are no commercial properties located within 750 feet of the ATF complex; therefore, impacts to commercial properties are not evaluated.
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 79
Table 15 Estimated ATF Complex Exterior Noise Levels at Nearest Sensitive Receivers Project
Component Quantity Location
Daytime Noise Level at
Nearest Sensitive
Receivers (dBA Leq)2
Nighttime Noise Level at
Nearest Sensitive
Receivers (dBA Leq)2
Rotary Lobe
Blowers
2 Inside ATF Building 33.7 33.7
Air Compressors 2 Inside ATF Building 30.9 30.9
Pumps 11 Inside ATF Building 50.3 50.3
Pumps 4 Inside ATF Building 40.9 40.9
Pumps 2 Inside Pumphouse 50.5 50.5
HVAC Equipment –
180 MBH
2 Rooftop of ATF Building 37.0 29.0
HVAC Equipment –
66 MBH
1 Rooftop of ATF Building 29.0 29.0
HVAC Equipment –
12 MBH
2 Rooftop of ATF Building 32.0 32.0
Emergency
Generator3
1 Central-eastern boundary of
ATF complex inside weather
protective enclosure with
sound attenuation material
41.2 n/a
Total Combined
Noise Level
54.1 53.8
Thresholds of
Significance4
60 55
Threshold
Exceeded?
No No
dBA = A-weighted decibels; Leq = equivalent noise level; MBH = thousand British thermal units per hour (measurement of HVAC capacity)
1 Reference noise levels do not account for interior-exterior attenuation provided by building structures. 2 Includes a 10-dBA interior-exterior noise level reduction to account for attenuation provided by the ATF building and pumphouse structures, based on Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance that buildings with open windows (similar to vents) provide a minimum 10-dBA noise reduction (FHWA 2011).
3 Testing and maintenance of the emergency generator would only occur during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.). Operation of the back-up generator during emergency events (e.g., power outages) would be exempt from compliance with these noise standards pursuant to GBMC Section 3120.11(B).
4 Based on exterior noise level limits outlined in GBMC Section 3120.8, Table 1 and the stationary equipment noise standards outlined in GMBC Section 3120.10(B)(6).
Source: Steele 2023
Roadway Noise
ORIGINAL CENTRAL COAST BLUE PROJECT
The certified EIR for the Original Project determined roadway noise impacts would be less than significant because project operation would result in minimal increases to existing daily traffic volumes on local roadways.
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
80 MODIFIED CENTRAL COAST BLUE PROJECT
The Modified Project would not result in changes to the operational characteristics of the Original Project. Therefore, roadway noise impacts under the Modified Project would be similar to those of the Original Project and less than significant. As a result, the Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts associated with roadway noise and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
Vibration
ORIGINAL CENTRAL COAST BLUE PROJECT
The certified EIR for the Original Project determined vibration impacts would be less than significant because construction and operational activities would not generate perceptible vibration at nearby receivers and would not exceed the threshold for structural damage.
MODIFIED CENTRAL COAST BLUE PROJECT
Construction activities under the Modified Project would require the use of similar construction equipment as that required for the Original Project with the exception that sheet pile installation using vibratory methods may be required for installation of the equalization basin pump station at the ATF complex under the Modified Project. Vibration levels associated with sheet pile installation were estimated at a distance of 150 feet pursuant to GBMC Section 3.120.10(B)(7) and Pismo Beach Municipal Code Section 9.24.050(B)(6), which both prohibit operation of any device that creates a vibration which is above the vibration perception threshold of an individual at 150 feet from the source if on a public space or public right-of-way. At 150 feet, sheet pile installation would generate vibration levels of approximately 0.21 inches per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV), which would not exceed the threshold for human annoyance of 0.25 in/sec PPV (Table 4.10-2 in Section
4.10, Noise, of the certified EIR).21 Sheet pile installation would occur within 40 feet of the nearest off-site structure, which is a commercial/industrial building to the west. At this distance, vibration levels would be approximately 0.91 in/sec PPV, which would not exceed 2.0 in/sec PPV, the threshold for damage to modern industrial/commercial buildings (Table 4.10-2 in Section 4.10, Noise, of the certified EIR). In addition, sheet pile installation would occur within 210 feet of the nearest residence, and at this distance, vibration levels would be approximately 0.15 in/sec PPV, which would not exceed
0.5 in/sec PPV, the threshold for damage to older residential buildings (Table 4.10-2 in Section 4.10, Noise, of the certified EIR). Therefore, as with the Original Project, impacts related to construction vibration under the Modified Project would be less than significant. The Modified Project thus would not result in new significant impacts associated with construction vibration and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
As with the Original Project, the Modified Project does not include components or processes that would generate substantial vibration during operation. Therefore, similar to the Original Project, no operational vibration impacts would occur under the Modified Project. The Modified Project thus would not result in new significant impacts associated with operational vibration and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
21 Assumes sheet pile installation using vibratory methods would generate similar or lower vibration levels as the upper range vibration level for an impact pile driver, which is 1.518 in/sec PPV at 25 feet (FTA 2018).
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 81
Airport-Related Noise
ORIGINAL CENTRAL COAST BLUE PROJECT
The certified EIR for the Original Project determined impacts resulting from airport-related noise would be less than significant because construction workers and operations staff would be protected from high noise levels by compliance with Cal OSHA regulations and because operations staff would be exposed infrequently to outdoor aircraft noise.
MODIFIED CENTRAL COAST BLUE PROJECT
The Modified Project area would remain largely the same as the Original Project area with the addition of an approximately 0.5-acre area immediately adjacent to the southwestern boundary of the Original Project area. Several components of the Modified Project would be located within the single-event noise level contours for the Oceano County Airport. MW-3A/3B, MW-4C/4D, and some pipelines would be located within the 65 dBA single-event noise level contour; IW-4 Alternate, MW- 4A/4B, MW-5D/5E/5F, MW-NCMA North A/B/C, and some pipelines would be located within the 75 dBA single-event noise level contour; and IW-5A, IW-5B, MW-5A/5B/5C, and some pipelines would be located within the 85 dBA single-event noise level contour and within Oceano County Airport.
As with the Original Project, construction workers and operations staff would be intermittently exposed to elevated noise levels during aircraft take-off and landing events at the Oceano County Airport. However, construction workers and operations staff would be protected from high noise levels by compliance with Cal OSHA regulations. In addition, operations staff would primarily work indoors at the ATF complex, which is outside the single event noise contours for the airport, and staff completing outdoor operations and maintenance activities at wells and pipelines within the single event noise contours would be exposed infrequently to high noise levels during aircraft takeoff and landing events with the option to seek a quieter noise environment inside the SSLOCSD WWTP building or their vehicles, if desired, to reduce exposure to aircraft noise. Therefore, as with the Original Project, impacts related to airport noise under the Modified Project would be less than significant. The Modified Project thus would not result in new significant impacts associated with airport-related noise and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new significant or substantially more severe effects associated with noise would occur, and no new mitigation measures are necessary. Impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated from the certified EIR, as revised below.
As with the Original Project, Mitigation Measure N-1 included in Section 4.10, Noise, of the certified EIR as well as Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a), BIO-1(b), BIO-1(e), and BIO-1(j), detailed in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, would be required for the Modified Project to reduce noise impacts to a less- than-significant level.22 Minor modifications to Mitigation Measure N-1 are shown in strikeout/underline format below to incorporate revised specifications for noise barriers due to different project component locations under the Modified Project. In addition, certain provisions have been removed from Mitigation Measure N-1 because project components are no longer proposed to be located in the Coastal Dunes RV Park and Campground, with the exception of MW-3A/3B that was
22 Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a), BIO-1(b), BIO-1(e), and BIO-1(j) were required in the Certified EIR to reduce potential adverse impacts to special status species associated with installation of the agricultural irrigation pipelines, which currently have undetermined locations. The Modified Project would not result in changes to this component of the Original Project.
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
82 previously installed. The provisions of Mitigation Measure N-1 related to preparation of a construction noise analysis for the new production well have been satisfied through preparation of this Addendum. Mitigation Measure N-2 included in Section 4.10, Noise, of the certified EIR has been completed through preparation of an acoustical analysis as part of this Addendum that demonstrated exterior and interior noise levels generated by operation of the ATF complex (including the new production well) would not exceed GBMC standards (see Operational Noise section).
N-1 Construction Noise Reduction Measures
The following construction noise reduction measures shall be implemented during project construction activities:
Well drilling activities for IW-1, IW-2A, IW-2B, IW-3, MW-1A/1B, MW-2A/2B/2C, and MW-3A/3B, shall be scheduled during the non-peak season for the Coastal Dunes RV Park and Campground to the extent practicable, as defined by the County of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Department.
Construction of individual injection, monitoring, and production wells located within 0.25 mile of each other shall be scheduled so as not to overlap to the extent practicable. Construction of the water distribution/agricultural irrigation pipelines and ATF complex shall be scheduled so as not to overlap with construction of the injection, monitoring, and production wells to the extent practicable.
Noise-generating construction activities associated with IW-5A, IW-5B, and MW-5A/5B/5C shall not occur on the same days as noise-generating construction activities for the SSLOCSD Wastewater Redundancy Project to the extent practicable. Whenever possible, construction activities shall be scheduled so as to avoid operating several pieces of equipment simultaneously, which causes high noise levels. The City shall coordinate with the County of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Department to temporarily close all campsites within 200 feet of IW-1, IW-2A, IW-2B, IW-3, MW-1A/1B, MW- 2A/2B/2C, and MW-3A/3B for the duration of 24-hour well drilling activities. The City shall provide temporary housing accommodation via hotel or other comparable accommodation for the duration of 24-hour well drilling activities for residents and hotel/motel/campground guests in Grover Beach within 100 feet of construction activity construction equipment used for 24-hour well drilling activities and for residents and hotel/motel/campground guests in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County within 175 feet of construction activity construction equipment used for 24-hour well drilling activities. All heavy-duty stationary construction equipment shall be placed so that emitted noise is directed away from the nearest sensitive receivers.
During injection, production, and monitoring well construction, all equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained critical grade mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards. During injection, production, and monitoring well construction, the City’s contractor(s) shall use portable sound enclosures for all generators and air compressors that provide at least a 10-dBA reduction in noise levels.
During injection, production, and monitoring well construction, the City’s contractor(s) shall install temporary sound barriers/blankets of sufficient height and length to break the line-of-sight between the engines of heavy-duty equipment and nearby sensitive receivers. All temporary barriers/blankets shall be constructed of material with a minimum weight of two pounds per
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 83
square foot and shall be continuous with no gaps or holes between panels or the ground. Sound blankets on individual pieces of construction equipment may also be used in place of temporary sound barriers and shall be of sufficient length to overlap each other and the ground surface.
Temporary sound barriers and/or blankets shall be installed for the entire duration of the well drilling phase for each injection and monitoring well. Temporary sound barriers shall meet the following specifications for each location. Alternatively, the City can choose to instead provide temporary housing accommodation via hotel or other comparable accommodation for the duration of 24-hour well drilling activities for residents and hotel/motel guests in Grover Beach within 550 feet of construction equipment used for 24-hour well drilling activities and for residents and hotel/motel guests in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County within 1,750 feet of construction equipment used for 24-hour well drilling activities, which would achieve an equivalent level of noise reduction.
IW-1 (Well Drilling). The barrier shall be at least 13 17 feet in height and shall be installed along the northern, southern, and eastern edges of the construction site. The barrier shall be at least 50 feet in length along the southern edge and at least 100 feet in length along the eastern edge installed around the construction site boundaries during nighttime construction activities (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). If sound blankets are used, they shall be a minimum STC rating of 9 16.
IW-2A and IW-2B (Well Drilling). The barrier shall be at least 13 feet in height and shall surround all active heavy-duty equipment at the construction sites during nighttime construction activities (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). The barrier shall be installed along the southern, eastern, and northern edges of the construction site boundaries and at least 100 feet in length along the eastern edge. If sound blankets are used, they shall have a minimum STC rating of 9.
IW-3, IW-2 Alternate, MW-2A/2B/2C Alternate, and MW-4A/4B (Well Drilling). The barrier shall be at least 22 17 feet in height, surround all active heavy-duty equipment at the construction sites, and installed around the construction site boundaries during nighttime construction activities (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) be at least 100 feet in length along the northern and southern sides and at least 50 feet in length along the western and eastern sides. If sound blankets are used, they shall be a minimum STC rating of 18 15. IW-4 Alternate (Well Drilling). The barrier shall be at least 24 feet in height, surround all active heavy-duty equipment at the construction sites, and installed around the construction site boundaries during nighttime construction activities (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) If sound blankets are used, they shall be a minimum STC rating of 20 19. IW-5A, IW-5B, and MW-5A/5B/5C (Well Drilling). The barrier shall be at least 13 feet in height and shall be installed along the western and northern edges of the construction sites during nighttime construction activities (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). The barrier shall be at least 50 feet in length along the western edge and at least 100 feet in length along the northern edge. If sound blankets are used, they shall be a minimum STC rating of 8. MW-1A/1B, MW-1A/1B Alternate, and MW-1C/1D Alternate and MW-3A/3B (Well Drilling). The barrier shall be at least 13 17 feet in height, surround all active heavy-duty equipment at the construction sites, and be installed around the construction site boundaries during all well drilling/installation activities at least 100 feet in length along the southern and northern edges and at least 50 feet in length along the eastern and western edges. If sound blankets are used, they shall be a minimum STC rating of 9 15.
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
84 MW-1C/1D and MW-2D/2E/2F (Well Drilling). The barrier shall be at least 15 feet in height, surround all active heavy-duty equipment at the construction sites, and be installed around the construction site boundaries during all well drilling/installation activities at least 100 feet in length along the southern and northern edges and at least 50 feet in length along the eastern and western edges. If sound blankets are used, they shall be a minimum STC rating of 15.
MW-2A/2B/2C (Well Drilling). The barrier shall be at least 13 17 feet in height, surround all active heavy-duty equipment at the construction sites, and be installed around the construction site boundaries during nighttime construction activities (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) at least 100 feet in length along the northern and southern sides and at least 50 feet in length along the western and eastern sides. If sound blankets are used, they shall be a minimum STC rating of 9 15.
MW-2D/2E/2F (Well Drilling). The barrier shall be at least 10 feet in height and shall be installed along the western and southern edges of the construction site during nighttime construction activities (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). If sound blankets are used, they shall be a minimum STC rating of 5.
MW-3C/3D/3E (Well Drilling). The barrier shall be at least 12 17 feet in height, surround all active heavy-duty equipment at the construction sites, and shall be installed along the western, southern, and eastern edges of the construction site during nighttime construction activities (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). and be at least 50 feet in length along the southern and northern edges and at least 100 feet in length along the eastern and western edges. If sound blankets are used, they shall be a minimum STC rating of 7 20. MW-4C/4D (Well Drilling). The barrier shall be at least 14 feet in height, surround all active heavy-duty equipment at the construction sites, and be installed around the construction site boundaries during nighttime construction activities (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) at least 100 feet in length along the northern and southern sides and at least 50 feet in length along the western and eastern sides. If sound blankets are used, they shall be a minimum STC rating of
11. MW-5D/5E/5F (Well Drilling). The barrier shall be at least 24 feet in height, and surround all active heavy-duty equipment at the construction sites during nighttime construction activities (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.), and be at least 100 feet in length along the northern and southern sides and at least 50 feet in length along the western side. If sound blankets are used, they shall be a minimum STC rating of 20.
MW-NMCA North A/B/C (Well Drilling). The barrier shall be at least 17 feet in height and shall be installed along the southern edge of the construction site during nighttime construction activities (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). If sound blankets are used, they shall be a minimum STC rating of 14.
MW-NMCA South A/B/C (Well Drilling). The barrier shall be at least 10 feet in height and shall be installed along the northern and eastern edges of the construction site during nighttime construction activities (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). If sound blankets are used, they shall be a minimum STC rating of 5.
PB-23 (Well Drilling). The barrier shall be at least 13 feet in height and shall be installed around the construction site boundaries during nighttime construction activities (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). If sound blankets are used, they shall be a minimum STC rating of 9.
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 85
The City shall provide a non-automated telephone number for local residents to call to submit complaints associated with construction noise during all phases of construction. The City shall maintain a log of complaints and shall address complaints to minimize noise issues for neighbors. Upon selection of the location of the new production well, an acoustical analysis shall be prepared by a qualified professional to determine the construction noise reduction measures necessary to reduce daytime exterior construction noise levels to at or below 80 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive receivers and nighttime exterior construction noise levels to at or below 55 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive receivers. The acoustical analysis shall only evaluate the construction noise impacts of the new production well if proposed construction activities are located within 1,620 feet of sensitive receivers, as measured from the center of the construction site. The acoustical analysis shall include the following components:
Identification of the nearest noise-sensitive receivers to the location of the new production well;
Quantitative analysis of construction noise levels for the production well at the nearest noise- sensitive receivers; and
Identification of noise reduction measures that would achieve compliance with the aforementioned exterior daytime and nighttime noise standards. These measures may include, but would not be limited to, use of mufflers, portable sound enclosures, and temporary sound barriers and/or blankets.
The City or its contractor(s) shall implement all noise reduction measures identified in the acoustical analysis.
N-2 Acoustical Analysis of ATF Complex Operations
Upon completion of the 30 percent design for the ATF complex and selection of equipment, an acoustical analysis shall be prepared to determine whether combined operational noise levels from stationary noise-generating equipment, including but not limited to the pump station, HVAC equipment, and treatment equipment, will exceed the following noise standards:
Exterior noise level limits, measured at the property line of residential land use (GBMC Section 3120.8, Table 1):
60 dBA Leq from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
55 dBA Leq from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
Stationary equipment noise standards, measured at the property line of the receiving land use (GBMC Section 3120.10[B][6]):23
60 dBA Leq from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. at single-family residential land uses 65 dBA Leq from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. at multi-family residential land uses 70 dBA Leq from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. at mixed use residential/commercial land uses Interior noise limits, measured at the interior of habitable rooms (i.e., bedrooms, kitchens, living rooms, dining rooms) of the affected residential use (GBMC Section 3120.9):
45 dBA Leq from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
40 dBA Leq from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
23 Per GBMC Section 3120.10(B)(6), any stationary noise source that operates between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. is required to obtain an Exception Permit.
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
86 If operational noise levels would exceed any of the noise level limits, the acoustical analysis shall provide recommended attenuation measures to reduce operational noise levels below the standards.
The City shall implement these measures at the ATF complex. Measures may include, but would not be limited to:
Siting the pump station and/or HVAC equipment away from noise-sensitive land uses Orienting the pump station and/or ATF building such that louvers face away from noise-sensitive land uses
Installing a sound barrier (e.g., a wall, berm, or combination or both) of sufficient height and length to break the line of sight between noise-sensitive land uses and noise sources at the ATF complex
Screening HVAC equipment
Installing HVAC equipment on the rooftop rather than at ground-level As indicated in the certified EIR for the Original Project, implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 would entail the use of several noise reduction measures, including mufflers and temporary sound barriers. Use of critical grade mufflers would reduce engine noise levels from mobile construction equipment by at least 10 dBA in comparison to industrial grade mufflers, and installation of portable sound enclosures for generators and air compressors would reduce noise levels by at least 10 dBA.
Temporary sound barriers would reduce noise levels from well drilling activities by approximately 5 to 20 dBA, depending on the barrier height specified for each well location (see Appendix E for updated barrier calculations). As shown in Table 16, implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 would reduce daytime construction noise levels for IW-1, IW-2 Alternate, IW-3, MW-1A/1B, MW-1A/1B Alternate, MW-1C/1D Alternate, MW-2A/2B/2C, MW-2A/2B/2C Alternate, MW-3C/3D, and MW- 4A/4B under the Modified Project at the nearest sensitive receivers below the daytime exterior noise thresholds. In addition, as determined in the certified EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure N- 1 for MW-1C/1D, the location of which remains the same under the Modified Project, would reduce daytime construction noise impacts below the daytime exterior noise threshold. Therefore, daytime construction noise impacts for the injection, monitoring and production wells would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
In addition to mufflers, enclosures, and barriers, Mitigation Measure N-1 would require the temporary relocation of residents in Grover Beach within 100 feet of construction activity in Grover Beach and residents in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County within 175 feet of construction activity during 24-hour well drilling activities to reduce daytime and nighttime noise impacts. Therefore, by relocating the nearest residents, the closest noise-sensitive receivers would be located at greater distances, which would reduce noise impacts. As shown in Table 17 and Table 18 for the injection/production wells and monitoring wells, respectively, implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 would reduce nighttime construction noise levels under the Modified Project at the nearest noise- sensitive receivers below the nighttime exterior noise thresholds. In addition, nighttime exterior noise levels for injection and monitoring wells in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County under the Modified Project would be reduced below 55 dBA Leq and 75 dBA Lmax, which would result in interior noise levels below the thresholds of 35 dBA Leq and 55 dBA Lmax, assuming an exterior-to-interior noise level reduction of 20 dBA with windows closed (Federal Highway Administration 2011).
Nighttime exterior noise levels for injection, production, and monitoring wells in Grover Beach under the Modified Project would be reduced below 60 dBA Leq, which would result in interior noise levels below the threshold of 40 dBA Leq, assuming an exterior-to-interior noise level reduction of 20 dBA with windows closed (Federal Highway Administration 2011). Furthermore, as determined in the
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 87
certified EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 for IW-5A, IW-5B, MW-1C/1D, MW-4C/4D, MW-5A/5B/5C, and MW-5D/5E/5F, the locations of which remain the same under the Modified Project, would reduce nighttime construction noise impacts below the nighttime exterior and interior noise thresholds.
As with the Original Project, it is possible that the final well locations under the Modified Project may shift within a 50-foot radius of their current locations during final engineering and/or during installation to account for subsurface conditions. As a result, the final well locations may be closer to sensitive receivers than analyzed herein such that the specified mitigation measures would not sufficiently reduce noise levels. Furthermore, similar to the Original Project, residents in Grover Beach within 100 feet of well locations and residents in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County within 175 feet of well locations may voluntarily choose not to temporary relocate during 24-hour well drilling activities and would thus be exposed to a significant temporary increase in ambient noise levels in excess of the specified thresholds. Therefore, as with the Original Project, construction noise impacts would be minimized but not completely mitigated through implementation of Mitigation Measure N- 1 for the Modified Project. As a result, nighttime construction noise impacts related to 24-hour well drilling activities for the injection, production, and monitoring wells would be significant and unavoidable under the Modified Project, similar to the Original Project. Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts from nighttime construction noise and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
Conclusion
Significant and Unavoidable for Nighttime Construction Noise, Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated for Daytime Construction Noise and Operational Noise, Less than Significant for Roadway Noise, Vibration, and Airport-Related Noise (Same as Certified EIR).
4.11 Transportation
Impact Analysis
ORIGINAL CENTRAL COAST BLUE PROJECT
The certified EIR determined the Original Project would result in potentially significant construction- related impacts to circulation system programs, plans, policies, and ordinances as well as emergency access. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure T-1 outlined in Section 4.11, Transportation, of the certified EIR, these impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
The certified EIR determined the Original Project would not conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 because of the low level of operational traffic generated, and no impact would occur. In addition, the certified EIR concluded the Original Project would not result in construction or operational impacts related to traffic hazards or operational impacts to emergency access due to compliance with existing regulations, policies, codes, and standards.
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
88 Table 16 Mitigated Daytime Well Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Sensitive Receivers – Modified Project Construction Phase Equipment
MW-1A/1B,
MW-1A/1B Alternate, MW-
1C/1D Alternate, MW-4A/4B
(Residences 15 Feet Away)
IW-2 Alternate, IW-3,
MW-2A/2B/2C Alternate, MW-
4A/4B (Residences 40 Feet Away)
IW-1,
MW-2A/2B/2C, MW-3C/3D
(Residences 80 Feet Away)
Site Preparation1 Backhoe 75 66 60
Sewer Connection1 Excavator, Backhoe 79 70 64
Well Drilling/Installation1, 2 Drill Rig, Generators (4), Air Compressor
71 77 76
Site Restoration1 Forklift, Backhoe 76 67 66
Threshold 80 80 80
Threshold Exceeded? No No No
dBA = A-weighted decibel; Leq = equivalent noise level; Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level 1 Assumes use of critical grade mufflers on all construction equipment (10-dBA reduction). 2 Assumes use of portable sound enclosures that provide a minimum 10-dBA reduction for generators and air compressors (10-dBA reduction) and installation of temporary sound barriers meeting the requirements of Mitigation Measure N-1 (at least 15-dBA reduction) for PB-23, MW-1A/1B, MW-1A/1B Alternate, MW-1C/1D Alternate, and MW-4A/4B.
Note: Assumes a standard attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. See Table 4.10-10 in Section 4.10, Noise, of the certified EIR for construction noise levels by phase at a distance of 50 feet.
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 89
Table 17 Mitigated Nighttime 24-Hour Well Drilling Noise Levels at Nearest Sensitive Receivers – Injection and Production Wells – Modified Project1
Construction
Phase Equipment
IW-3 (Residences 175
Feet Away)
IW-2 Alternate
(Residences 100 Feet
Away)
IW-1 (Residences 100
Feet Away)
IW-4 Alternate
(Residences 200 Feet
Away)
IW-2A, IW-2B, PB-23
(Residences 200 Feet
Away)
Well Drilling/
Installation1, 2
Drill Rig,
Generators (4),
Air Compressor
45 dBA Leq
44 dBA Lmax
54 dBA Leq 54 dBA Leq 45 dBA Leq
44 dBA Lmax
55 dBA Leq
Thresholds3 45 dBA Leq
65 dBA Lmax
55 dBA Leq 55 dBA Leq 45 dBA Leq
65 dBA Lmax
55 dBA Leq
Threshold
Exceeded?
No No No No No
dBA = A-weighted decibel; Leq = equivalent noise level; Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level 1 The Lmax value is the maximum instantaneous noise level generated by the loudest single piece of equipment operating during each phase. Unlike average Leq values, which assume multiple pieces of equipment operating within the one-hour averaging period, Lmax values are not summed because it is not assumed that a given piece of equipment would generate its peak noise level at the same time as another piece of equipment.
2 Assumes use of critical grade mufflers on all construction equipment (10-dBA reduction), use of portable sound enclosures for stationary construction equipment (10-dBA reduction), and installation of temporary sound barriers meeting the requirements of Mitigation Measure N-1 (reduction varies by barrier) or alternative provision of temporary accommodations for residents and hotel/motel guests during nighttime well drilling/installation activities. 3 Thresholds are applied based on whether the project component is located in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County (Table 4.10-5 in Section 4.10, Noise, of the certified EIR; County of San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element Table 3-2) or the city of Grover Beach (Table 4.10-7 in Section 4.10, Noise, of the certified EIR; GBMC Section 3120.8, Table 1).
Note: Assumes a standard attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. See Table 4.10-10 in Section 4.10, Noise, of the certified EIR for construction noise levels by phase at 50 feet.
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
90 Table 18 Mitigated Nighttime 24-Hour Well Drilling Noise Levels at Nearest Sensitive Receivers – Monitoring Wells – Modified Project1
Construction
Phase Equipment
MW-1A/1B,
MW-1A/1B
Alternate,
MW-1C/1D
Alternate,
MW-3C/3D
(Residences 100
Feet Away)
MW-4A/4B
(Residences 175
Feet Away)
MW-2A/2B/2C
Alternate
(Residences 100
Feet Away)
MW-2A/2B/2C
(Residences 100
Feet Away)
MW-2D/2E/2F
(Residences 400
Feet Away)
MW-NCMA
North A/B/C
(Residence 400
Feet Away)
MW-NCMA
South A/B/C
(Residence
2,200 Feet
Away)
Well Drilling/
Installation1, 2
Drill Rig,
Generators (4),
Air Compressor
54 dBA Leq 45 dBA Leq
44 dBA Lmax
54 dBA Leq 54 dBA Leq 52 dBA Leq 44 dBA Leq
43 dBA Lmax
37 dBA Leq
36 dBA Lmax
Threshold3 55 dBA Leq 45 dBA Leq
65 dBA Lmax
55 dBA Leq 55 dBA Leq 55 dBA Leq 45 dBA Leq
65 dBA Lmax
45 dBA Leq
65 dBA Lmax
Threshold
Exceeded?
No No No No No No No
dBA = A-weighted decibel; Leq = equivalent noise level; Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level 1 The Lmax value is the maximum instantaneous noise level generated by the loudest single piece of equipment operating during each phase. Unlike average Leq values, which assume multiple pieces of equipment operating within the one-hour averaging period, Lmax values are not summed because it is not assumed that a given piece of equipment would generate its peak noise level at the same time as another piece of equipment.
2 Assumes use of critical grade mufflers on all construction equipment (10-dBA reduction), use of portable sound enclosures for stationary construction equipment (10-dBA reduction), and installation of temporary sound barriers meeting the requirements of Mitigation Measure N-1 (reduction varies by barrier) or alternative provision of temporary accommodations for residents and hotel/motel guests during nighttime well drilling/installation activities. 3 Thresholds are applied based on whether the project component is located in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County (Table 4.10-5 in Section 4.10, Noise, of the certified EIR; County of San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element Table 3-2) or the city of Grover Beach (Table 4.10-7 in Section 4.10, Noise, of the certified EIR; GBMC Section 3120.8, Table 1).
Note: Assumes a standard attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. See Table 4.10-10 in Section 4.10, Noise, of the certified EIR for construction noise levels by phase at 50 feet.
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 91
MODIFIED CENTRAL COAST BLUE PROJECT
Similar to the Original Project, construction of Modified Project would result in temporary access restrictions along public roadways throughout the Modified Project area that could conflict with programs, plans, ordinances, and policies addressing the circulation system as well as result in inadequate emergency access. Mitigation Measure T-1 would continue to apply to construction activities for the Modified Project and would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Construction of the Modified Project would include changes in construction characteristics, such as extended construction schedules, greater lengths of pipelines, and additional truck trips for hauling demolished pavement and soil material and disposing of produced groundwater. The Modified Project would therefore generate greater VMT during construction activities as compared to the Original Project. However, as with the Original Project, increases in VMT during construction of the Modified Project would be short-term, minimal, and temporary and would therefore be less than significant. Similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would be required to implement existing regulations and policies for road closures and lane detours that would reduce the potential for the construction to increase traffic hazards. Therefore, as with the Original Project, construction impacts related to traffic hazards under the Modified Project would be less than significant.
The Modified Project would not result in changes to the operational characteristics of the Original Project, including those related to employee trip and VMT generation and site access. As a result, operational transportation impacts would remain the same as those identified for the Original Project in the certified EIR. Operational impacts related to plans, policies, and programs addressing the circulation system and emergency access would be less than significant under the Modified Project, and no operational impacts related to VMT and traffic hazards would occur In light of the above discussion, the Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts to transportation and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new significant or substantially more severe effects associated with transportation would occur, and no new mitigation measures are necessary. Impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated from the certified EIR.
As with the Original Project, Mitigation Measure T-1 included in Section 4.11, Transportation, of the certified EIR would be required for the Modified Project to reduce potential impacts related to transportation to a less-than-significant level.
T-1 Transportation Management Plan
A Transportation Management Plan (TMP) shall be developed and implemented by the City, SSLOCSD, and/or their construction contractor(s) during construction of the proposed project. The TMP shall conform to Caltrans’ Transportation Management Plan Guidelines and shall include but is not limited to:
Construction Traffic Routes and Staging Locations: The TMP shall identify construction staging site locations and potential road closures, alternate routes for detours, and planned truck routes for construction-related vehicle traffic, including but not limited to haul trucks, material delivery trucks, and equipment delivery trucks. It shall also identify alternative safe routes and policies to maintain safety along bicycle and pedestrian routes during construction. Construction traffic
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
92 routes shall avoid local residential streets to the maximum extent practicable. Staging locations, alternate detour routes, and construction traffic routes shall avoid other active construction projects within 0.25 mile of the project construction sites to the maximum extent practicable. Damage Repair: The TMP shall include the following requirements to minimize damage to the existing roadway network:
A list of precautionary measures to protect the existing roadway network, including but not limited to pavements, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and drainage structures, shall be outlined.
The construction contractor(s) shall be required to implement these measures throughout the duration of construction of the water distribution pipelines. The roadway network along the proposed water distribution alignment(s) shall be surveyed prior to the start of project construction activities, and existing roadway conditions shall be summarized in a brief report.
Any damage to the roadway network that occurs as a result of project construction activities shall be noted, and the project sponsors shall repair all damage. Coordination with Emergency Services: The TMP shall include requirements to notify local emergency response providers, including Five Cities Fire Authority, the San Luis Obispo Sheriff Department, ambulance services, and paramedic services at least one week prior to the start of work within public rights-of-way if lane and/or road closures are required. To the extent possible, the City shall minimize the duration of disruptions/closures to roadways and critical access points for emergency services.
Coordination with Recreation Facilities: The TMP shall require coordination with owners/operators of any affected recreational facilities to minimize the duration of disruptions/closures to recreational facilities, trails, and adjacent access points. Coordination with South County Transit: If the proposed project will affect access to existing South County Transit bus stops, the TMP shall also include temporary, alternative bus stops and directional signage, as determined in coordination with South County Transit. Coordination with Schools: The TMP shall require coordination with the Lucia Mar Unified School District in the study area to minimize construction impacts during the regular school year. Coordinate with Caltrans: If the proposed project requires lane and/or road closures of SR 1, the TMP shall require coordination with Caltrans to ensure the TMP conforms with Caltrans’ Transportation Management Plan Guidelines.
Coordination with Nearby Construction Sites: The TMP shall identify all active construction projects within 0.25 mile of project construction sites and require coordination with the applicants and/or contractors of these projects during all phases of construction regarding the following:
All temporary lane and/or roadway closures shall be coordinated to limit overlap of roadway closures
All major deliveries and haul truck trips shall be coordinated to limit the occurrence of simultaneous deliveries and haul truck trips
The City, its contractor(s), or its representative(s) shall meet on a regular basis with the applicant(s), contractor(s) or their representative(s) of active construction projects within
0.25 mile of the project construction sites during construction to address any outstanding issues related to construction traffic.
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 93
Transportation Control and Safety: The TMP shall provide for traffic control measures including flag persons, warning signs, lights, barricades, cones, and/or detour routes to provide safe passage of vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic and access by emergency responders. Plan Approval: The TMP shall be submitted to County of San Luis Obispo Departments of Public Works and Parks & Recreation (if park property is affected) Planning and Building and the City of Grover Beach Community Development Department for review and approval. Public Notification: Prior to the start of construction, written notice shall be provided regarding potential land and/or road closures as described in the TMP. Notice shall be delivered to potentially affected properties within a 500-foot radius of the project construction sites. The notice shall contain a brief description of the work, work dates, and contact information of the City’s Planning Division. The notice shall be delivered ten calendar days prior to beginning the work and again at two working days prior to beginning the work. The notice shall be in the form of a door hanger made of index paper with a size of 14 inches by 4.5 inches. The notice shall be printed in both in English and Spanish. A revised notice shall be delivered in the event of delays in schedule as soon as reasonably possible after a delay is identified, and the revised schedule is known.
Conclusion
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation (Same as Certified EIR)
4.12 Effects Found Not to Be Significant
Aesthetics
Original Central Coast Blue Project
The certified EIR determined the Original Project would result in less-than-significant effects on scenic vistas, state scenic highways, visual character and scenic quality, and light and glare. This determination was primarily the result of several factors, including that underground project components would not be visible after construction, aboveground project components would be low- profile and similar in height to existing development, project components would be consistent with underlying zoning designations, and the Original Project would introduce minimal new light and glare sources.
Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Similar to the Original Project, underground components of the Modified Project, such as pipelines, would not be visible after construction, and aboveground components under the Modified Project would be low-profile and similar in height to existing development such that they would not impede scenic vistas. There are no Modified Project components within potential view of SR 1, an officially designated scenic highway, with the exception of IW-3, located in the public right-of-way of Monroe Drive to the west of SR 1, and the existing MW-3A/3B and IW-4, which are located in the Coastal Dunes RV Park and Campground. All of these components have small footprints and are either at- grade or have a low height profile. As with the Original Project, Modified Project components would not be visible from U.S. Highway 101, which is an eligible state scenic highway (Caltrans 2018).
Modified Project components would continue to be consistent with the underlying zoning designations and would not result in impacts related to visual character or scenic quality due to zoning
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
94 conflicts. In addition, the Modified Project would introduce similar types of lighting and glare sources as those included in the Original Project.
Based on the locations of injection, monitoring, and production wells and the presence of intervening topography, vegetation, and development, the temporary sound barriers/blankets required under Mitigation Measure N-1 for the Modified Project would not have the potential to block public views of the ocean or foothills or damage scenic resources within view of State Route 1. In addition, the visual appearance of these temporary sound barriers/blankets is not subject to zoning regulations and would therefore not conflict with regulations governing scenic quality. Lastly, temporary sound barriers/blankets installed during construction pursuant to Mitigation Measure N-1 would not include sources of light or glare. Therefore, similar to the Original Project, aesthetic impacts under the Modified Project would be less than significant. As such, the Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts related to aesthetics and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new significant or substantially more severe environmental effects related to aesthetics would occur. Potential aesthetic impacts would remain less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.
Conclusion
Less than Significant Impact (Same as Certified EIR)
Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Original Central Coast Blue Project
The certified EIR determined the Original Project would result in no impacts to agricultural and forestry resources because most components would not be located on mapped, zoned, or active farmland, forestland, or timberland with the exception of MW-4C/4D, which would be located in a stormwater detention basin that is mapped as Farmland of Statewide Importance but zoned as Public Facilities. As such, installation of this monitoring well would not convert Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use.
Modified Central Coast Blue Project
As with the Original Project, most components of the Modified Project would not be located on mapped, zoned, or active farmland, forestland, or timberland (California Department of Conservation [DOC] 2022). MW-4C/4D would remain in a generally similar location as that evaluated for the Original Project and would similarly not result in the conversion of Farmland of Statewide Importance to non- agricultural use. MW-NCMA South A/B/C would be located on Unique Farmland, and MW-NCMA North A/B/C would be located on Prime Farmland and on parcels under Williamson Act Contract (DOC 2021 and 2022). However, the footprint of each monitoring well would be relatively small (25 square feet) as compared to the overall size of the parcels (36 acres and 42 acres). As such, installation of these two monitoring wells would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland or Unique Farmland to non-agricultural use. Therefore, similar to the Original Project, no impacts to agricultural and forestry resources would occur. As such, the Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts related to agricultural and forest resources and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 95
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new significant or substantially more severe environmental effects related to agricultural and forestry resources would occur. No impacts to agricultural and forestry resources would occur, and no mitigation measures would be required.
Conclusion
No Impact (Same as Certified EIR)
Geology & Soils
Original Central Coast Blue Project
The certified EIR determined the Original Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to geology and soils, including the rupture of known earthquake faults, strong seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, soil erosion, unstable geologic units and soils, expansive soils, septic tanks and alternative wastewater disposal systems, and paleontological resources. This determination was primarily the result of several factors, including compliance with applicable design and construction standards and regulations; the lack of fault rupture, landslide, expansive soils risks; a groundwater injection regime within the natural capacity of the groundwater basis; and the low potential for discovery of scientifically significant paleontological resources.
Modified Central Coast Blue Project
As with the Original Project, the Modified Project site is not located in an earthquake fault zone and is within in an area with low landslide potential, moderate liquefaction potential, and some expansive soils (County of San Luis Obispo 2006 and 2013; United States Department of Agriculture [USDA] 1984, 2007, and 2017). The Modified Project would not include any components that would exacerbate seismic risks related to fault rupture, ground shaking, or landslides due to compliance with applicable design and construction standards. In addition, similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would result in groundwater injection to recharge the underlying groundwater basin and counterbalance groundwater pumping by NCMA agencies, which would not exceed the groundwater basin’s natural capacity such that the area would become more prone to risks from liquefaction or expansive soils. The Modified Project also would not construct habitable structures on expansive soils.
Thus, impacts related to fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and expansive soils under the Modified Project would be less than significant.
Like the Original Project, the Modified Project would involve excavation, grading, trenching, well drilling, and soil export, which would result in some land and soil disturbance. The Modified Project would also be subject to the NPDES Construction General Permit, Central Coast Post-Construction Stormwater Requirements, and applicable local regulations. As a result, impacts related to soil erosion and loss of topsoil under the Modified Project would be less than significant.
Like the Original Project, the Modified Project would not require septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, and no impacts would occur.
The following analysis is based on an updated Paleontological Resources Assessment prepared for the Modified Project in 2023, which is included in Appendix F of this Addendum (Rincon 2023d). As indicated in this report, the Modified Project components are located in areas mapped as sediments with low paleontological sensitivity, and excavations up to 100 feet below the surface would not result in significant impacts on paleontological resources because they would be confined to geologic units
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
96 with low paleontological sensitivity (Rincon 2023c). Drilling for groundwater injection, monitoring, and production wells is anticipated to reach up to 680 feet below the surface, which means that drilling would impact geologic units below 100 feet, which have not been mapped at the surface.
Based on the regional geology, the likely underlying geologic units could range from having no paleontological sensitivity to high paleontological sensitivity. The nature of the rocks more than 100 feet below the surface is unknown; therefore, they are considered to have an undetermined paleontological sensitivity (Rincon 2023c). Paleontological monitoring of boreholes is typically conducted by examining spoils brought up during the drilling process for any contained fossil remains.
However, as noted in Section 4.12, Effects Found Not to Be Significant, of the certified EIR, any encountered paleontological resources would be pulverized by drilling equipment before the spoils reach the surface due to the proposed well drilling method for depths greater than 100 feet such that it would not be possible to know whether a paleontological resource is significantly impacted by drilling activities. No known paleontological resources would be impacted by the Modified Project, and the level of potential impacts to undiscovered resources is unknowable; therefore, as with the Original Project, well drilling activities under the Modified Project would be unlikely to result in destruction, damage, or loss of scientifically important paleontological resources, and impacts would be less than significant (Rincon 2023c).
In light of the above discussion, the Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts related to geology and soils and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new significant or substantially more severe environmental effects related to geology and soils would occur. Potential impacts to geology and soils would remain less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.
Conclusion
Less than Significant Impact (Same as Certified EIR)
Mineral Resources
Original Central Coast Blue Project
The certified EIR for the Original Project determined no impacts to mineral resources would occur because the Original Project area is not located in a mineral resource zone or in an area that would be used for mineral extraction in the foreseeable future.
Modified Central Coast Blue Project
The Modified Project area would remain largely the same as the Original Project area with the addition of an approximately 0.5-acre area immediately adjacent to the southwestern boundary of the Original Project area. As with the Original Project, the Modified Project area would not be located in mineral resource zone or in an area that would be used for mineral extraction in the foreseeable future. The Modified Project would thus not result in new significant impacts to mineral resources and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 97
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new significant or substantially more severe environmental effects related to mineral resources would occur. Potential mineral resources impacts would remain less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.
Conclusion
No Impact (Same as Certified EIR)
Population/Housing
Original Central Coast Blue Project
The certified EIR determined the Original Project would result in no impacts to population and housing because it would not directly or indirectly induce substantial unplanned population growth or lead to the displacement of substantial numbers of people or housing, necessitating construction of replacement housing.
Modified Central Coast Blue Project
The Modified Project, like the Original Project, does not include construction of residences or the creation of substantial employment opportunities. In addition, the Modified Project would not increase water supplies but would rather improve water supply reliability such that substantial unplanned population growth would not be induced. As with the Original Project, the Modified Project would not require demolition of existing housing or create long-term disturbances to residential land uses that would lead to the displacement of substantial numbers of people and necessitate construction of replacement housing. Therefore, the Modified Project would result in no impacts to population and housing. As such, the Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts associated with population and housing and would not increase the severity of impacts identified in the certified EIR.
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new significant or substantially more severe environmental effects related to population and housing would occur. No impacts to population and housing would occur, and no mitigation measures would be required.
Conclusion
No Impact (Same as Certified EIR)
Public Services
Original Central Coast Blue Project
The certified EIR determined the Original Project would not include residential or commercial development that would directly induce population growth or change existing demand for public services and would not expand future water supplies such that population growth and associated additional demand of public services would be indirectly induced. As a result, the Original Project would result in no impacts to public services.
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
98 Modified Central Coast Blue Project
The Modified Project, like the Original Project, would not include residential or commercial development that would directly induce population growth or change existing demand for public services. The Modified Project also would not expand future water supplies and therefore would not indirectly induce population growth such that population growth and associated additional demand of public services would be indirectly induced. Therefore, the Modified Project would result in no impacts to public services. As such, the Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts associated with public services and would not increase the severity of impacts identified in the certified EIR.
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new significant or substantially more severe environmental effects related to public services would occur. No impacts to public services would occur, and no mitigation measures would be required.
Conclusion
No Impact (Same as Certified EIR)
Recreation
Original Central Coast Blue Project
The certified EIR determined the Original Project would result in less-than-significant impacts to recreation because 1) the Original Project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth such that demand on existing recreational facilities would increase and 2) the Original Project would not increase or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities or affect the maintenance of the County of San Luis Obispo’s Coastal Dunes RV Park and Campground in which several project components would be located.
Modified Central Coast Blue Project
The Modified Project, like the Original Project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth such that demand on existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities would increase. Unlike the Original Project, IW-1, IW-2A, IW-2B, IW-3, IW-4 Alternate, MW-2A/2B/2C, and MW-4A/4B would be re-sited under the Modified Project outside the County of San Luis Obispo’s Coastal Dunes RV Park and Campground. Therefore, construction and operational-related impacts to the Coastal Dunes RV Park and Campground associated with these project components would be less under the Modified Project as compared to the Original Project. MW-3A/3B under the Modified Project, which has been constructed, would remain within Coastal Dunes RV Park and Campground and would not interfere with campground operations. Similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would include a series of pipelines that would traverse the Coastal Dunes RV Park and Campground and Oceano Campground and would be installed via trenching and trenchless methods.
Construction activities for these pipelines may result in temporary closure of several sites within the parks for the duration of construction activities within the parks. However, as with the Original Project, construction activities would be scheduled to occur during the off-season (i.e., between Labor Day and Memorial Day) to the extent practicable to reduce impacts to recreational activities in this park, and several other campgrounds are available in the vicinity, such as North Beach Campground in Pismo State Beach. In addition, these sites would continue to be available for use after the
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 99
completion of construction. IW-4 Alternate and MW-4A/B would be located within the public right- of-way adjacent to Oceano Park. Construction activities for these project components may temporarily restrict access to portions of Oceano Park if construction equipment/materials are staged adjacent to the well locations, but upon completion, these components would not permanently restrict or otherwise affect use of Oceano Park. Furthermore, the Modified Project would not increase or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, similar to the Original Project, impacts to recreation under the Modified Project would be less than significant. As such, the Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts to recreation and would not increase the severity of impacts identified in the certified EIR.
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new significant or substantially more severe environmental effects related to recreation would occur. Potential impacts to recreation would remain less than significant, no mitigation measures would be required.
Conclusion
Less than Significant Impact (Same as Certified EIR)
Utilities/Service Systems
Original Central Coast Blue Project
The certified EIR determined the Original Project would result in no impacts to utilities and service systems for the following reasons:
Environmental impacts associated with construction of the ATF complex and associated infrastructure, which is a type of wastewater treatment facility, as well as utility relocations, if necessary, were evaluated and disclosed in the rest of the certified EIR; The physical connections between the ATF complex and existing water supply, sewer, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications utilities would be minor given its location in an urbanized area;
The Original Project would include on-site stormwater drainage features in compliance with the Central Coast Post-Construction Stormwater Requirements such that the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems would not be exceeded; Minimal water demand, wastewater, and solid waste would be generated by employees at the ATF complex;
The Original Project would increase the reliability of groundwater supplies by creating a sustainable, drought-resistant local water supply for southern San Luis Obispo County and provide a new source of recharge to the SMGB to protect the basin from degradation via seawater intrusion;
Increased groundwater extraction by the NCMA agencies would remain within the entitlements of the existing SMGB Adjudication Agreement; and
Reverse osmosis concentrate and backwash water discharged via the existing ocean outfall would comply with NPDES permit standards and would not be treated by the existing WWTPs.
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
100
Modified Central Coast Blue Project
The Modified Project would result in similar types of construction activities as the Original Project and would result in no changes to the operational characteristics of the Original Project. Therefore, the Modified Project would similarly result in no impacts related to the construction or relocation of wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities that could result in significant environmental impacts and would generate the same minimal level of water demand, wastewater, and solid waste that would be adequately served by existing water supplies, wastewater treatment plants, and landfills. The Modified Project, like the Original Project, would provide a new source of groundwater recharge to the SMGB to improve groundwater supply reliability, and increased groundwater extraction by the Cities of Pismo Beach, Grover Beach, and Arroyo Grande would remain within the entitlements of the existing SMGB Adjudication Agreement. Therefore, as with the Original Project, the Modified Project would result in no impacts to utilities and service systems. As such, Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts related to utilities and service systems and would not increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified EIR.
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new significant or substantially more severe environmental effects related to utilities and service systems would occur. No impacts to utilities and service system impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures would be required.
Conclusion
No Impact (Same as Certified EIR)
Wildfire
Original Central Coast Blue Project
The certified EIR determined the Original Project would result in no wildfire impacts because the Original Project area is generally not at elevated risk for wildfire and because the Original Project does not include components that would exacerbate wildfire risk or post-fire risks of flooding/landslides or require installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that would result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.
Modified Central Coast Blue Project
The Modified Project area would remain largely the same as the Original Project area with the addition of an approximately 0.5-acre area immediately adjacent to the southwestern boundary of the Original Project area. The Modified Project would be subject to the same wildfire conditions as the Original Project and would similarly not include components that would exacerbate wildfire risk or post-fire risks of flooding/landslides or require installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that would result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Therefore, as with the Original Project, the Modified Project would result in no impacts to wildfire. As such, the Modified Project would not result in new significant impacts associated with wildfire and would not increase the severity of impacts identified in the certified EIR.
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Modified Central Coast Blue Project
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 101
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new significant or substantially more severe environmental effects related to wildfire would occur.
No wildfire impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures would be required.
Conclusion
No Impact (Same as Certified EIR)
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
102
This page intentionally left blank.
Federal Cross-Cutting Environmental Regulations Evaluation
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 103
5 Federal Cross-Cutting Environmental
Regulations Evaluation
Similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project may receive funding from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which is administered by the SWRCB on behalf of the USEPA. Therefore, to assist in compliance with the federal environmental requirements for the funding program, this Addendum includes analysis pertinent to several federal cross-cutting regulations (also referred to as federal cross-cutters or CEQA-Plus).
This section describes the status of compliance with relevant federal laws, executive orders, and policies, and the consultation that has occurred to date or will occur in the future. The topics are based in part on the SWRCB’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program Federal Cross-cutting Environmental Regulations Evaluation Form for Environmental Review and Federal Coordination. This section focuses on project components with known locations, which may receive funding under the project’s initial Clean Water State Revolving Fund application. Other project components with unknown locations (such as the potential agricultural irrigation pipelines described in the certified EIR for the Original Project) would require supplemental environmental review prior to pursuing Clean Water State Revolving Fund funding; therefore, compliance with federal environmental requirements will be discussed at the time of the supplemental environmental review.
5.1 Federal Endangered Species Act
Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, to ensure their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat of these species. Under Section 7, a project that could result in incidental take of a listed threatened or endangered species must consult with the USFWS to obtain a Biological Opinion. If the Biological Opinion finds the project could jeopardize the existence of a listed species (“jeopardy opinion”), the agency cannot authorize the project until it is modified to obtain a “nonjeopardy” opinion.
As detailed in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of this Addendum and the 2023 BRA (Appendix B), the Modified Project site contains suitable habitat for special status plant and wildlife species. Of the 58 special status plant species and 31 special status wildlife species that are known to or have the potential to occur within the vicinity of the project area, four federally threatened species – marsh sandwort, La Graciosa thistle, CRLF, and south-central California coast distinct population segment of steelhead - have the potential to occur within the Modified Project site.
As indicated in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of this Addendum, the Modified Project would not result in significant direct or indirect impacts to marsh sandwort and La Graciosa thistle because the majority of Modified Project impacts would occur on developed or landscaped areas outside the limits of native habitats and potentially suitable marsh and coastal scrub habitats for La Graciosa thistle and marsh sandwort would be avoided during construction.
CRLF have the potential to occur in the footprints of IW-5A, IW-5B, and MW-5A/5B/5C as well as portions of the pipeline alignments adjacent to potentially suitable dispersal habitat for the CRLF in the form of arroyo willow riparian within 50 feet of Arroyo Grande Creek. No CRLF individuals were
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
104
observed within the Modified Project site during the survey effort. Given the potential for direct and indirect impacts to CRLF individuals as well as direct impacts to CRLF habitat, impacts to CRLF would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) and BIO-1(b), which include avoidance of CRLF habitat and implementation of avoidance and minimization measures for CRLF during construction activities, would be required to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Steelhead have the potential to occur in Arroyo Grande Creek, located approximately 50 feet south of the Modified Project site, and in Meadow Creek and its lagoon, located more than 100 feet west and south of the Modified Project site. Steelhead may also potentially migrate near the discharge point of the existing ocean outfall. The Modified Project would not result in direct impacts to Arroyo Grande Creek or Meadow Creek and its lagoon. In addition, the change in water salinity output at the discharge point of the existing ocean outfall under the Modified Project is not expected to cause an impact to steelhead given compliance with existing NPDES permit limitations. Therefore, impacts to steelhead would be less than significant.
In light of the above discussion, with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) and BIO-1(b) from the certified EIR, the Modified Project would not jeopardize any federally listed species. Similar to the Original Project, the lead agency would be in compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act for the Modified Project.
5.2 National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106
The purpose of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) is to protect, preserve, rehabilitate, or restore significant historical, archaeological, and cultural resources. Section 106 requires federal agencies to take into account effects on historic properties. Section 106 review involves a step-by- step procedure described in detail in the implementing regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800).
As described in Section 4.3, Cultural Resources, of this Addendum, a supplemental cultural resource assessment with updated Section 106 consultation was prepared for the Modified Project, which is included as Appendix D. The supplemental cultural resources assessment as well as the original cultural resources assessment prepared for the Original Project were completed in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and can be submitted as part of the consultation process with the State Historic Preservation Officer. Concurrence by State Historic Preservation Officer would ensure compliance with the NHPA. The Area of Potential Effect for a project is defined in 36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.16(d) as the “geographic area or areas within which a project may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties if any such property exists.” Historic properties are those significant cultural resources listed in or are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places per the following criteria (36 Code of Federal Regulations 60.4):
(A) Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history
(B) Are associated with the lives of persons significant to our past (C) Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of installation, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components that may lack individual distinction (D) Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information import in prehistory or history
Federal Cross-Cutting Environmental Regulations Evaluation
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 105
As discussed in Section 4.3, Cultural Resources, of this Addendum and the 2023 CRA (Appendix D), the Modified Project would not result in adverse effects to historic properties. Therefore, similar to the Original Project, the Modified Project would result in no effect to historic properties under Section 106 of NHPA.
5.3 Clean Air Act
The U.S. Congress adopted general conformity requirements as part of the federal CAA Amendments in 1990, and USEPA implemented those requirements in 1993 (Section 176 of the FCAA [42 United States Code § 7506] and 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 93, Subpart B). General conformity requires that all federal actions “conform” with the State Implementation Plan as approved or promulgated by USEPA. The purpose of the general conformity program is to ensure that actions taken by the federal government do not undermine State or local efforts to achieve and maintain the NAAQS. Before a federal action is taken, it must be evaluated for conformity with the State Implementation Plan. All “reasonably foreseeable” emissions predicted to result from the action are taken into consideration. These include direct and indirect emissions and must be identified as to location and quantity. If it is found that the action would create emissions above de minimis threshold levels specified in USEPA regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations § 93.153[b]), or if the activity is considered “regionally significant” because its emissions exceed 10 percent of an area’s total emissions, the action cannot proceed unless mitigation measures are specified that would bring the proposed project into conformance.
As described in Section 4.1, Air Quality, the project area lies within the western portion of San Luis Obispo County, which is designated attainment for all NAAQS. Therefore, under the General Conformity Rule, there are no applicable de minimis levels for the Modified Project. As such, because the proposed project would not exceed an applicable de minimis threshold, general conformity requirements do not apply, and the Modified Project is exempt from a conformity determination.
Accordingly, the lead agency would be in compliance with the FCAA.
For informational purposes, Table 19 summarizes the total maximum annual emissions that would be generated during construction and operation of the Modified Project. Regardless of basin attainment status, the SWRCB requires that estimates of criteria pollutant emissions associated with the project and supporting calculations be submitted with Attachment E1 of the State Revolving Fund Environmental Package. The results of this assessment will be summarized in Attachment E1, and this section will be included with the State Revolving Fund Environmental Package as supporting documentation.
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
106
Table 19 Estimated Maximum Annual Emissions (tons per year) – Modified Project Emissions Source VOC1 NOX NO22 CO PM10 PM2.5 SO2
Maximum Construction
Emissions3
1.05 7.56 7.56 8.67 0.95 0.46 0.10
Maximum Operational
Emissions
0.12 0.05 0.05 0.21 0.06 0.02 0.01
Maximum Construction plus
Operational Emissions4
1.17 7.61 7.61 8.88 1.01 0.48 0.11
Maximum Annual Emissions 1.17 7.61 7.61 8.88 1.01 0.48 0.11 De Minimis Thresholds5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Threshold Exceeded? N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
VOC: volatile organic compounds; NOX: nitrogen oxides; NO2: nitrogen dioxide; CO: carbon monoxide; PM10: particulate matter less than 10 microns in size; PM2.5: particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size; SO2: sulfur dioxide; N/A: not applicable. 1 VOC is equivalent to ROG as calculated by CalEEMod.
2 NO2 was conservatively assumed to be equivalent to NOX. 3 Maximum annual construction emissions would occur during Phase I of construction activities. 4 Conservatively assumes that all construction emissions would be generated in same year that project operation commences. 5 Since the portion of San Luis Obispo County in which the project area is located is in attainment for all NAAQS, there are no applicable de minimis levels for the Modified Project.
See Appendix A for modeling details and CalEEMod and RCEM results.
5.4 Coastal Zone Management Act
The Coastal Zone Management Act, passed by Congress in 1972 and managed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, is designed to balance competing land and water issues in coastal zones. It also aims to “preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance the resources of the nation’s coastal zone.” Within California, the Coastal Zone Management Act is administered by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the California Coastal Conservancy, and the CCC.
Several project components would be located within the coastal zone, and the project sponsors would be required to obtain Coastal Development Permits prior to construction. At this time, the City of Grover Beach and County of San Luis Obispo have consented to a consolidated coastal development permitting process with the CCC, and efforts are underway to apply for and obtain a coastal development permit for the Modified Project. Therefore, the lead agency would be in compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Act.
5.5 Farmland Protection Policy Act
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires a federal agency to consider the effects of its actions and programs on the nation’s farmlands. The Farmland Protection Policy Act is intended to minimize the impact of federal programs with respect to the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. It assures that, to the extent possible, federal programs are administered to be compatible with state, local, and private programs and policies to protect farmland.
As described in Section 4.12, Effects Found Not to Be Significant, of this Addendum, the Modified Project would not adversely impact any agricultural lands. Therefore, the lead agency would be in compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act.
Federal Cross-Cutting Environmental Regulations Evaluation
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 107
5.6 Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management
Executive Order (EO) 11988 requires federal agencies to recognize the values of floodplains and to consider the public benefits from restoring and preserving floodplains.
As described in Section 4.8, Hydrology/Water Quality, the following Modified Project components would be located within the 100-year Flood Hazard Area:
Two injection wells (IW-5A and IW-5B)
Three monitoring well (MW-5A/5B/5C, MW-NCMA North A/B/C, and MW-NCMA South A/B/C) Certain pipelines
Upon completion of construction, the proposed pipelines would be located entirely underground and would not interfere with the floodplain. Furthermore, the proposed injection and monitoring wells would be located primarily underground with relatively small aboveground footprints (approximately 3,000 square feet for the injection wells and approximately 25 square feet for the monitoring wells).
In addition, these wells would be located within the development footprint of existing land uses (i.e., the SSLOCSD WWTP property). Therefore, these project components would have a negligible impact on the floodplain. As such, the lead agency would be in compliance with this EO.
5.7 Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act, and Executive Order 13168
The MBTA and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act prohibit the take of migratory birds (or any part, nest, or eggs of any such bird) and the take and commerce of eagles. EO 13168 requires that any project with federal involvement address impacts of federal actions on migratory birds.
As described in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of this Addendum, the Modified Project would have a less-than-significant impact on nesting birds protected under the MBTA with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1(e) if construction cannot be avoided during nesting season. Thus, with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1(e), the lead agency would be in compliance with this EO.
5.8 Executive Order 11990 – Protection of Wetlands
Under EO 11990, federal agencies must avoid affecting wetlands unless it is determined that no practicable alternative is available.
As described in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of this Addendum and the Jurisdictional Delineation included as Appendix C, the Modified Project site does not include any federally protected wetlands.
Therefore, the lead agency would be in compliance with EO 11990.
5.9 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was passed in 1968 to preserve and protect designated rivers for their natural, cultural, and recreational value.
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
108
There are no designated Wild and Scenic Rivers within the Modified Project area, and no designated rivers would be adversely affected by the Modified Project (National Park Service 2022). As a result, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act does not apply to the Modified Project.
5.10 Safe Drinking Water Act – Source Water Protection
Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act established the USEPA’s Sole Source Aquifer Program.
This program protects communities from groundwater contamination from federally funded projects.
Within USEPA’s Region 9, which includes California, there are nine sole source aquifers. None of these sole source aquifers are located within or near the Modified Project area (USEPA 2022). Therefore, the Sole Source Aquifer Program does not apply to the Modified Project, and the lead agency would be in compliance with Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
5.11 Executive Order on Trails for America in the 21st
Century
The EO on Trails for America requires federal agencies to protect, connect, promote, and assist trails of all types throughout the United States. Existing trails located within and adjacent to the project area include the Lagoon Trail, which loops around Oceano Lagoon west of SR 1; the Meadow Creek Trail, which runs adjacent to Meadow Creek between Nacimiento Avenue to 4th Street; and several trails through Pismo State Beach east of SR 1, including the Beach Trail and Dune Trail (California State Parks 2020; City of Grover Beach 2007). The County of San Luis Obispo Parks Department does not identify any County trails within the project area (County of San Luis Obispo 2023). Project construction and operation would not impact any existing trails because no temporary or permanent trail closures would be required. Furthermore, project components would not be located on or interfere with the planned route of the Beach Cities Multi-Purpose Trail through Pismo State Beach and Pismo Lakes Ecological Reserve (RRM Design Group 2019). As a result, no adverse effects on trails would occur, and the lead agency is in compliance with this EO.
5.12 Executive Order 13007 – Indian Sacred Sites
Sacred sites are defined in EO 13007 (May 24, 1996) as “any specific, discrete, narrowly delineated location on federal land that is identified by an Indian tribe, or Indian individual determined to be an appropriately authoritative representative of an Indian religion, as sacred by virtue of its established religious significance to, or ceremonial use by, an Indian religion; provided that the tribe or appropriately authoritative representative of an Indian religion has informed the agency of the existence of such a site.”
The Modified Project would not be located on or impact any federal lands and therefore would not affect any Indian sacred sites under EO 13007.
5.13 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) of 1976, as amended (16 United States Code Section 1801 et seq.), is the primary act governing federal
Federal Cross-Cutting Environmental Regulations Evaluation
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 109
management of fisheries in federal waters, from the three-nautical-mile state territorial sea limit to the outer limit of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. It establishes exclusive U.S. management authority over all fishing within the Exclusive Economic Zone, all anadromous fish throughout their migratory range except when in a foreign nation’s waters, and all fish on the continental shelf. The Act also requires federal agencies to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service on actions that could damage Essential Fish Habitat, as defined in the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act (Public Law 104-297). Essential Fish Habitat includes those habitats that support the different life stages of each managed species. A single species may use many different habitats throughout its life to support breeding, spawning, nursery, feeding, and protection functions. Essential Fish Habitat can consist of both the water column and the underlying surface (e.g., streambed) of a particular area.
The Modified Project area is located primarily within developed/landscaped land and existing roadways. The existing ocean outfall pipeline extends approximately 0.5 mile off the coast and therefore falls within the state territorial sea limit, which extends three nautical miles (i.e., 3.5 miles) offshore. As such, the existing ocean outfall does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Magnuson- Stevens Act. Furthermore, as described in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of this Addendum, the Modified Project is not expected to have an adverse effect on resident or migratory fish, wildlife species, or fish habitat in the project area. Therefore, the lead agency would be in compliance with this act.
5.14 Executive Order 12898 - Environmental Justice
EO 12898, known as the federal environmental justice policy, requires federal agencies to address to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law the disproportionately high adverse human health and environmental impacts of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and low- income populations in the United States. EO 12898 also directs each agency to develop its own strategy to implement environmental justice.
As discussed in Section 4.5, Environmental Justice, of this Addendum, the entire Modified Project area, which includes both Oceano and Grover Beach, is identified as an environmental justice community.
However, most of the potentially significant environmental impacts would be reduced to a less-than- significant level through incorporation of mitigation measures. The Modified Project’s significant and unavoidable construction noise impact would be evenly distributed throughout the Modified Project area at 18 well locations, not focused on a single area. Therefore, this impact would not affect one area or population more than another. Furthermore, construction noise impacts would be short-term, temporary, and typical of construction projects occurring throughout the region, which often generate temporary increases in noise. Therefore, although this impact would occur in the environmental justice communities of Oceano and Grover Beach, this impact would not be disproportionately high and adverse, and the lead agency would be in compliance with EO 12898.
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
110
6 Conclusion
As discussed in detail in the preceding sections, potential impacts associated with the Modified Central Coast Blue Project are consistent with potential impacts characterized and mitigated for in the certified EIR for the Original Central Coast Blue Project. Substantive revisions to the certified EIR are not necessary because no new significant impacts or impacts of substantially greater severity than previously described would occur as a result of the Modified Project. Therefore, the following determinations have been found to be applicable:
No further evaluation of environmental impacts is required for the Modified Central Coast Blue Project;
No Subsequent EIR is necessary pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162; and This Addendum is the appropriate level of environmental analysis and documentation for the Modified Central Coast Blue Project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(c), this Addendum will be included in the public record for the Modified Central Coast Blue Project. Documents related to this Addendum will be available at the City of Grover Beach, 154 South 8th Street, Grover Beach, California 93433 and the City of Pismo Beach, 760 Mattie Road, Pismo Beach, California 93449.
References and Preparers
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 111
7 References and Preparers
7.1 References
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2018. California State Scenic Highway System. https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e 8057116f1aacaa (accessed February 2023).
California State Parks. 2020. Pismo State Beach Oceano Campground. https://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/595/files/PismoSB%20CampgroundMap_Oceano1017202
0.pdf (accessed February 2023).
Department of Conservation (DOC). 2021. California Williamson Act Enrollment Finder. https://gis.conservation.ca.gov/portal/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=18f7488c0a9 d4d299f5e9c33b312f312 (accessed February 2023).
_____. 2022. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed February 2023).
_____. 2023. CGS Information Warehouse: Tsunami Hazard Area Map. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/ts_evacuation/?extent=- 13530447.9954%2C4141791.9629%2C-
13398976.3068%2C4287328.0647%2C102100&utm_source=cgs+active&utm_content=sanl uisobispo (accessed February 2023).
Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2023. EnviroStor. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/ (accessed February 2023).
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2017. National Flood Insurance Rate Map San Luis Obispo County Panel 1601.
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=Grover%20Beach%2C%20CA#searchres ultsanchor (accessed February 2023).
Grover Beach, City of. 2007. South County Trail Brochure. https://www.grover.org/DocumentCenter/View/1524/Flyer-SouthCountyTrailGuide- 2007?bidId= (accessed February 2023).
National Park Service. 2022. Wild and Scenic Rivers.
https://nps.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=ff42a57d0aae43c49a88daee0e3 53142 (accessed December 2022).
Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon). 2023a. Biological Resources Assessment. January 2021, Revised February 2023.
_____. 2023b. Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Delineation. February 2023. _____. 2023c. Supplemental Assessment to the 2020 Central Coast Blue Project Cultural Resources Assessment. February 2023.
_____. 2023d. Paleontological Resources Assessment – Update #1. February 2023 RRM Design Group. 2010. Beach Cities Multi-Purpose Trail - Trail Feasibility Study. March 2010. https://www.grover.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/1520 (accessed February 2023).
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
112
San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission. 2007. Airport Land Use Plan for the Oceano County Airport. https://www.sloairport.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/OceanoALUP- final.pdf (accessed February 2023).
San Luis Obispo, County of. 2006. Fault Hazards: County of San Luis Obispo. https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Departments/Planning-Building/Forms-Documents/Plans- and-Elements/Elements/Safety-Element-Maps/2-Fault-Hazards-Map.pdf (accessed February 2023).
____. 2013. Map 3: Liquefaction Hazards San Luis Obispo County. https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Departments/Planning-Building/Forms-Documents/Plans- and-Elements/Elements/Safety-Element-Maps/3-Liquefaction-Hazards-Map.pdf (accessed February 2023).
_____. 2023. Parks and Trails View. https://gis.slocounty.ca.gov/parks/#/parks-trails-map (accessed February 2023).
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2023. Geotracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ (accessed February 2023).
Stebbins, R. C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. 2nd ed. Houghton-Mifflin Company. Boston, Massachusetts.
Steele, Michael. 2023. Engineer, Water Systems Consulting. Personal communications via email regarding noise specifications with Annaliese Torres, Senior Environmental Planner, Rincon Consultants, Inc. January 26 through February 9, 2023.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2022. Sole Source Aquifers. https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=9ebb047ba3ec41ada1877 155fe31356b (accessed February 2023).
United State Census Bureau. 2021a. QuickFacts - Oceano CDP, California. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/oceanocdpcalifornia/IPE120221#IPE120221 (accessed February 2023).
_____.2021b. QuickFacts - Grover Beach City, California. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/groverbeachcitycalifornia (accessed February 2023). _____.2021c. QuickFacts - San Luis Obispo County, California. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/sanluisobispocountycalifornia (accessed February 2023).
United States Department of Agriculture. 1984. Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County, CA: Coastal Part.
____. 2007. Part 630 Hydrology National Engineering Handbook. May 2007. https://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/OpenNonWebContent.aspx?content=17757.wba (accessed February 2023).
____. 2018. “Web Soil Survey.” Last modified: September 12, 2018. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm (accessed February 2023).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2023. Superfund Site Search Results. https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/CurSites/srchrslt.cfm?start=1 (accessed February 2023).
References and Preparers
Final Addendum to the Central Coast Blue EIR 113
7.2 List of Preparers
This Addendum was prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. under contract to the City of Pismo Beach.
Persons and firms involved in data gathering, analysis, project management, and quality control include:
City of Pismo Beach (Lead Agency)
Matthew Downing, Community Development Director
City of Grover Beach (Responsible Agency)
Megan Martin, Community Development Director
Rafael Castillo, Senior Planner
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
Jennifer Haddow, Principal-in-Charge
Annaliese Torres, Project Manager/Senior Environmental Planner Virginia Dussell, Environmental Planner
Erik Holtz, GIS Specialist
Nikole Vannest, GIS Specialist
City of Pismo Beach
Central Coast Blue Project
114
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix A
Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Modeling
CCB I&P Wells v2 Custom Report, 4/27/2023
1 / 20
CCB I&P Wells v2 Custom 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 Year, Unmitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
3.5. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
3.7. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated
3.9. Trenching (2024) - Unmitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
CCB I&P Wells v2 Custom Report, 4/27/2023
2 / 20
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
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
CCB I&P Wells v2 Custom Report, 4/27/2023
3 / 20
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
8. User Changes to Default Data
CCB I&P Wells v2 Custom Report, 4/27/2023
4 / 20
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name CCB I&P Wells v2
Construction Start Date 1/1/2024
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s)3.20
Precipitation (days)1.60
Location 980 Huber St, Grover Beach, CA 93433, USA
County San Luis Obispo
City Grover Beach
Air District San Luis Obispo County APCD
Air Basin South Central Coast
TAZ 3319
EDFZ 6
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.11
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
General Light
Industry
3.00 1000sqft 0.07 3,000 0.00 ———
CCB I&P Wells v2 Custom Report, 4/27/2023
5 / 20
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.ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————
Unmit.0.80 8.13 7.65 0.03 0.26 0.64 0.90 0.24 0.17 0.41 3,095 0.11 0.31 3,198 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————
Unmit.1.76 15.0 18.2 0.03 0.56 0.64 0.90 0.52 0.17 0.56 3,091 0.14 0.31 3,187 Average
Daily (Max)
——————————————
Unmit.0.27 2.65 2.59 0.01 0.09 0.19 0.28 0.08 0.05 0.13 941 0.04 0.09 970 Annual
(Max)
——————————————
Unmit.0.05 0.48 0.47 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 156 0.01 0.01 161
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
——————————————
2024 0.80 8.13 7.65 0.03 0.26 0.64 0.90 0.24 0.17 0.41 3,095 0.11 0.31 3,198
CCB I&P Wells v2 Custom Report, 4/27/2023
6 / 20
Daily -
Winter
(Max)
——————————————
2024 1.76 15.0 18.2 0.03 0.56 0.64 0.90 0.52 0.17 0.56 3,091 0.14 0.31 3,187 Average
Daily
——————————————
2024 0.27 2.65 2.59 0.01 0.09 0.19 0.28 0.08 0.05 0.13 941 0.04 0.09 970 Annual ——————————————
2024 0.05 0.48 0.47 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 156 0.01 0.01 161
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite ——————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.12 1.20 1.92 < 0.005 0.05 —0.05 0.05 —0.05 290 0.01 < 0.005 291 Dust From
Material
Movement
—————0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 ————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 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
< 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 3.98 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.99
CCB I&P Wells v2 Custom Report, 4/27/2023
7 / 20
Dust From
Material
Movement
—————0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 ————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 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
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 0.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.66 Dust From
Material
Movement
—————0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 ————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 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 0.06 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 119 0.01 0.01 121 Vendor < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 45.7 < 0.005 0.01 47.8 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 Average
Daily
——————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.67 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.66 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 Annual ——————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.28 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 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
CCB I&P Wells v2 Custom Report, 4/27/2023
8 / 20
3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite ——————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.66 14.2 17.2 0.03 0.56 —0.56 0.51 —0.51 2,634 0.11 0.02 2,643 Dust From
Material
Movement
—————< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ————
Onsite truck 0.01 0.48 0.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 125 0.01 0.02 131 Average
Daily
——————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.16 0.19 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 28.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 29.0 Dust From
Material
Movement
—————< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ————
Onsite truck < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.43 Annual ——————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 4.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.80 Dust From
Material
Movement
—————< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ————
Onsite truck < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.24 Offsite ——————————————
CCB I&P Wells v2 Custom Report, 4/27/2023
9 / 20
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————
Worker 0.08 0.06 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 119 0.01 0.01 121 Vendor < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 45.7 < 0.005 0.01 47.8 Hauling < 0.005 0.16 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 112 0.01 0.02 117 Average
Daily
——————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.34 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.52 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.28 Annual ——————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.22 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21
3.5. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite ——————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.66 5.41 6.01 0.01 0.23 —0.23 0.21 —0.21 920 0.04 0.01 923 Onsite truck 0.02 0.47 0.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 124 0.01 0.02 131
CCB I&P Wells v2 Custom Report, 4/27/2023
10 / 20
——————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Off-Road
Equipment
0.66 5.41 6.01 0.01 0.23 —0.23 0.21 —0.21 920 0.04 0.01 923 Onsite truck 0.01 0.48 0.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 125 0.01 0.02 131 Average
Daily
——————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.18 1.51 1.68 < 0.005 0.06 —0.06 0.06 —0.06 257 0.01 < 0.005 258 Onsite truck < 0.005 0.13 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 34.8 < 0.005 0.01 36.5 Annual ——————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.03 0.28 0.31 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 42.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 42.7 Onsite truck < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.05 Offsite ——————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————
Worker 0.08 0.06 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 124 0.01 0.01 127 Vendor 0.04 2.12 0.65 0.01 0.03 0.50 0.53 0.03 0.14 0.17 1,900 0.05 0.28 1,990 Hauling < 0.005 0.07 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 26.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 28.1 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————
Worker 0.08 0.06 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 119 0.01 0.01 121 Vendor 0.04 2.19 0.65 0.01 0.03 0.50 0.53 0.03 0.14 0.17 1,900 0.05 0.28 1,985 Hauling < 0.005 0.08 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 26.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 28.1 Average
Daily
——————————————
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 33.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 34.1 Vendor 0.01 0.62 0.18 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.05 531 0.01 0.08 555
CCB I&P Wells v2 Custom Report, 4/27/2023
11 / 20
Hauling < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 7.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 7.85 Annual ——————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.64 Vendor < 0.005 0.11 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 87.9 < 0.005 0.01 91.9 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.24 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.30
3.7. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite ——————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.38 3.40 3.75 0.01 0.15 —0.15 0.14 —0.14 613 0.02 < 0.005 615 Architectura
l
Coatings
0.00 —————————————
Paving 0.00 —————————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 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
0.01 0.13 0.14 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 23.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 23.6 Architectura
l
Coatings
0.00 —————————————
Paving 0.00 —————————————
CCB I&P Wells v2 Custom Report, 4/27/2023
12 / 20
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 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
< 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 3.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.90 Architectura
l
Coatings
0.00 —————————————
Paving 0.00 —————————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 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 0.06 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 124 0.01 0.01 127 Vendor < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 45.7 < 0.005 0.01 47.9 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.68 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.75 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.83 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 Annual ——————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.77 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.30 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
3.9. Trenching (2024) - Unmitigated
CCB I&P Wells v2 Custom Report, 4/27/2023
13 / 20
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite ——————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.22 2.05 2.93 < 0.005 0.08 —0.08 0.08 —0.08 432 0.02 < 0.005 434 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 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
< 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 5.92 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.94 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 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
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 0.98 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.98 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 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 0.06 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 119 0.01 0.01 121 Vendor < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 45.7 < 0.005 0.01 47.8 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
CCB I&P Wells v2 Custom Report, 4/27/2023
14 / 20
——————————————Average
Daily
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.67 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.66 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 Annual ——————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.28 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 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
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) Vegetation ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————
Total ——————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————
Total ——————————————
Annual ——————————————
Total ——————————————
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
CCB I&P Wells v2 Custom Report, 4/27/2023
15 / 20
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O 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 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————
Avoided ——————————————
Subtotal ——————————————
Sequestere
d
——————————————
Subtotal ——————————————
Removed ——————————————
Subtotal ——————————————
———————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————
Avoided ——————————————
CCB I&P Wells v2 Custom Report, 4/27/2023
16 / 20
Subtotal ——————————————
Sequestere
d
——————————————
Subtotal ——————————————
Removed ——————————————
Subtotal ——————————————
———————————————
Annual ——————————————
Avoided ——————————————
Subtotal ——————————————
Sequestere
d
——————————————
Subtotal ——————————————
Removed ——————————————
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 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/1/2024 1/7/2024 5.00 5.00 — Critical Drilling Grading 1/15/2024 1/18/2024 5.00 4.00 — Well Installation Building Construction 1/19/2024 6/10/2024 5.00 102 — Site Restoration Paving 6/11/2024 6/28/2024 5.00 14.0 — Sewer Connection Trenching 1/8/2024 1/14/2024 5.00 5.00 —
CCB I&P Wells v2 Custom Report, 4/27/2023
17 / 20
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 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Critical Drilling Generator Sets Diesel Average 2.00 24.0 14.0 0.74 Critical Drilling Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 82.0 0.20 Critical Drilling Bore/Drill Rigs Diesel Average 1.00 24.0 83.0 0.50 Critical Drilling Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 24.0 37.0 0.48 Critical Drilling Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Well Installation Pumps Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 11.0 0.74 Well Installation Generator Sets Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Well Installation Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 82.0 0.20 Well Installation Bore/Drill Rigs Diesel Average 1.00 1.00 83.0 0.50 Well Installation Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48 Well Installation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site Restoration Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 82.0 0.20 Site Restoration Generator Sets Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Site Restoration Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Sewer Connection Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Sewer Connection Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
5.3. Construction Vehicles
CCB I&P Wells v2 Custom Report, 4/27/2023
18 / 20
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation ————
Site Preparation Worker 20.0 8.10 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor 2.00 6.90 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck ——HHDT
Critical Drilling ————
Critical Drilling Worker 20.0 8.10 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Critical Drilling Vendor 2.00 6.90 HHDT,MHDT
Critical Drilling Hauling 1.50 20.0 HHDT
Critical Drilling Onsite truck 23.6 1.00 HHDT
Sewer Connection ————
Sewer Connection Worker 20.0 8.10 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Sewer Connection Vendor 2.00 6.90 HHDT,MHDT
Sewer Connection Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Sewer Connection Onsite truck ——HHDT
Well Installation ————
Well Installation Worker 20.0 8.10 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Well Installation Vendor 2.00 300 HHDT,MHDT
Well Installation Hauling 3.00 2.00 HHDT
Well Installation Onsite truck 23.6 1.00 HHDT
Site Restoration ————
Site Restoration Worker 20.0 8.10 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Restoration Vendor 2.00 6.90 HHDT,MHDT
Site Restoration Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Restoration Onsite truck ——HHDT
CCB I&P Wells v2 Custom Report, 4/27/2023
19 / 20
5.4. Vehicles
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)
Site Restoration 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Yards)Material Exported (Cubic Yards)Acres Graded (acres)Material Demolished (sq. ft.)Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation ——0.00 0.00 —
Critical Drilling —93.0 0.00 0.00 —
Site Restoration 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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
General Light Industry 0.00 0%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
CCB I&P Wells v2 Custom Report, 4/27/2023
20 / 20
2024 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Engineer-provided construction schedule for one well Construction: Off-Road Equipment Engineer-provided info.
Construction: Trips and VMT Up to 10 workers during each phase. 1 delivery/water truck trip per day. Max trip distance of 300 miles for vendor delivery. 1,250 roundtrip truck trips for hauling produced groundwater one mile to stormwater detention basin.
Construction: Architectural Coatings Wells do not include components that would receive architectural coatings.
Construction: On-Road Fugitive Dust On-site truck trips used as proxy for transporting produced groundwater to SW basin via paved roadway network.
CCB I&P Wells v2 Quarterly Report, 4/27/2023
1 / 3
CCB I&P Wells v2 Quarterly 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
2.1.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.1.2. Construction Quarters
CCB I&P Wells v2 Quarterly Report, 4/27/2023
2 / 3
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name CCB I&P Wells v2
Construction Start Date 1/1/2024
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s)3.20
Precipitation (days)1.60
Location 980 Huber St, Grover Beach, CA 93433, USA
County San Luis Obispo
City Grover Beach
Air District San Luis Obispo County APCD
Air Basin South Central Coast
TAZ 3319
EDFZ 6
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.11
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
General Light
Industry
3.00 1000sqft 0.07 3,000 0.00 ———
CCB I&P Wells v2 Quarterly Report, 4/27/2023
3 / 3
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions
2.1.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (ton/quarter) and GHGs (MT/quarter) Un/Mit.ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Q1 ——————————————
Unmit.0.05 0.40 0.44 < 0.005 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.02 141 < 0.005 0.02 147 Q2 ——————————————
Unmit.0.05 0.38 0.43 < 0.005 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 137 < 0.005 0.02 143 Quarterly
(Max)
——————————————
Unmit.0.05 0.40 0.44 < 0.005 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.02 141 < 0.005 0.02 147
2.1.2. Construction Quarters
Quarter Start Date End Date Length (days)
Q1 1/1/2024 3/31/2024 91
Q2 4/1/2024 6/28/2024 89
CCB Monitoring Wells Custom Report, 4/27/2023
1 / 18
CCB Monitoring Wells Custom 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 Year, Unmitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
3.5. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
3.7. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
CCB Monitoring Wells Custom Report, 4/27/2023
2 / 18
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
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
CCB Monitoring Wells Custom Report, 4/27/2023
3 / 18
8. User Changes to Default Data
CCB Monitoring Wells Custom Report, 4/27/2023
4 / 18
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name CCB Monitoring Wells
Construction Start Date 1/1/2024
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s)3.20
Precipitation (days)1.60
Location 980 Huber St, Grover Beach, CA 93433, USA
County San Luis Obispo
City Grover Beach
Air District San Luis Obispo County APCD
Air Basin South Central Coast
TAZ 3319
EDFZ 6
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.11
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
Industrial
0.00 User Defined Unit < 0.005 0.00 ————
CCB Monitoring Wells Custom Report, 4/27/2023
5 / 18
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.ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————
Unmit.1.73 14.7 17.8 0.03 0.56 0.62 0.93 0.52 0.17 0.55 3,320 0.13 0.30 3,413 Average
Daily (Max)
——————————————
Unmit.0.06 0.55 0.63 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.03 168 0.01 0.01 172 Annual
(Max)
——————————————
Unmit.0.01 0.10 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 27.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 28.4
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
——————————————
Daily -
Winter
(Max)
——————————————
2024 1.73 14.7 17.8 0.03 0.56 0.62 0.93 0.52 0.17 0.55 3,320 0.13 0.30 3,413
CCB Monitoring Wells Custom Report, 4/27/2023
6 / 18
——————————————Average
Daily
2024 0.06 0.55 0.63 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.03 168 0.01 0.01 172 Annual ——————————————
2024 0.01 0.10 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 27.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 28.4
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite ——————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.12 1.20 1.92 < 0.005 0.05 —0.05 0.05 —0.05 290 0.01 < 0.005 291 Dust From
Material
Movement
—————0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 ————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 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
< 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 3.98 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.99 Dust From
Material
Movement
—————0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 ————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CCB Monitoring Wells Custom Report, 4/27/2023
7 / 18
Annual ——————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 0.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.66 Dust From
Material
Movement
—————0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 ————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 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 0.06 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 119 0.01 0.01 121 Vendor < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 45.7 < 0.005 0.01 47.8 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 Average
Daily
——————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.67 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.66 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 Annual ——————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.28 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 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
3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e
CCB Monitoring Wells Custom Report, 4/27/2023
8 / 18
Onsite ——————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.66 14.2 17.2 0.03 0.56 —0.56 0.51 —0.51 2,634 0.11 0.02 2,643 Dust From
Material
Movement
—————< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ————
Onsite truck < 0.005 0.16 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 42.3 < 0.005 0.01 44.4 Average
Daily
——————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.08 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 14.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 14.5 Dust From
Material
Movement
—————< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ————
Onsite truck < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.24 Annual ——————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 2.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.40 Dust From
Material
Movement
—————< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ————
Onsite truck < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 Offsite ——————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————
CCB Monitoring Wells Custom Report, 4/27/2023
9 / 18
——————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 89.3 0.01 < 0.005 90.6 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 Hauling < 0.005 0.27 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 186 0.01 0.03 195 Average
Daily
——————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.50 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 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.07 Annual ——————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 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 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18
3.5. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite ——————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.77 6.66 8.11 0.01 0.28 —0.28 0.25 —0.25 1,254 0.05 0.01 1,258 Onsite truck < 0.005 0.16 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 42.3 < 0.005 0.01 44.4
CCB Monitoring Wells Custom Report, 4/27/2023
10 / 18
——————————————Average
Daily
Off-Road
Equipment
0.03 0.24 0.29 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 44.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 44.8 Onsite truck < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.58 Annual ——————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 7.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 7.42 Onsite truck < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.26 Offsite ——————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————
Worker 0.08 0.06 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 119 0.01 0.01 121 Vendor 0.04 2.19 0.65 0.01 0.03 0.50 0.53 0.03 0.14 0.17 1,900 0.05 0.28 1,985 Hauling < 0.005 0.05 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.18 Average
Daily
——————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.34 Vendor < 0.005 0.08 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 67.7 < 0.005 0.01 70.8 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18 Annual ——————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.71 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.72 Vendor < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.7 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03
3.7. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated
CCB Monitoring Wells Custom Report, 4/27/2023
11 / 18
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite ——————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.35 3.10 3.27 0.01 0.14 —0.14 0.13 —0.13 540 0.02 < 0.005 542 Architectura
l
Coatings
0.00 —————————————
Paving 0.00 —————————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 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
0.01 0.12 0.13 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 < 0.005 —< 0.005 20.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 20.8 Architectura
l
Coatings
0.00 —————————————
Paving 0.00 —————————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 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
< 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 3.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.44 Architectura
l
Coatings
0.00 —————————————
Paving 0.00 —————————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CCB Monitoring Wells Custom Report, 4/27/2023
12 / 18
Offsite ——————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————
Worker 0.08 0.06 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 119 0.01 0.01 121 Vendor < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 45.7 < 0.005 0.01 47.8 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 Average
Daily
——————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.68 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.75 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.83 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 Annual ——————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.77 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.30 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
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) Vegetation ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————
CCB Monitoring Wells Custom Report, 4/27/2023
13 / 18
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 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O 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 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————
Avoided ——————————————
Subtotal ——————————————
CCB Monitoring Wells Custom Report, 4/27/2023
14 / 18
Sequestere ——————————————
Subtotal ——————————————
Removed ——————————————
Subtotal ——————————————
———————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————
Avoided ——————————————
Subtotal ——————————————
Sequestere
d
——————————————
Subtotal ——————————————
Removed ——————————————
Subtotal ——————————————
———————————————
Annual ——————————————
Avoided ——————————————
Subtotal ——————————————
Sequestere
d
——————————————
Subtotal ——————————————
Removed ——————————————
Subtotal ——————————————
———————————————
5. Activity Data
CCB Monitoring Wells Custom Report, 4/27/2023
15 / 18
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/1/2024 1/7/2024 5.00 5.00 — Critical Drilling Grading 1/8/2024 1/9/2024 5.00 2.00 — Well Installation Building Construction 1/10/2024 1/26/2024 5.00 13.0 — Site Restoration Paving 1/27/2024 2/15/2024 5.00 14.0 —
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 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Critical Drilling Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Critical Drilling Generator Sets Diesel Average 2.00 24.0 14.0 0.74 Critical Drilling Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 82.0 0.20 Critical Drilling Bore/Drill Rigs Diesel Average 1.00 24.0 83.0 0.50 Critical Drilling Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 24.0 37.0 0.48 Well Installation Pumps Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 11.0 0.74 Well Installation Generator Sets Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Well Installation Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 82.0 0.20 Well Installation Bore/Drill Rigs Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 83.0 0.50 Well Installation Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48 Well Installation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site Restoration Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 82.0 0.20 Site Restoration Generator Sets Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
CCB Monitoring Wells Custom Report, 4/27/2023
16 / 18
Site Restoration Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation ————
Site Preparation Worker 20.0 8.10 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor 2.00 6.90 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck ——HHDT
Well Installation ————
Well Installation Worker 20.0 8.10 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Well Installation Vendor 2.00 300 HHDT,MHDT
Well Installation Hauling 3.00 0.00 HHDT
Well Installation Onsite truck 8.00 1.00 HHDT
Site Restoration ————
Site Restoration Worker 20.0 8.10 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Restoration Vendor 2.00 6.90 HHDT,MHDT
Site Restoration Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Restoration Onsite truck ——HHDT
Critical Drilling ————
Critical Drilling Worker 15.0 8.10 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Critical Drilling Vendor 0.00 6.90 HHDT,MHDT
Critical Drilling Hauling 2.50 20.0 HHDT
Critical Drilling Onsite truck 8.00 1.00 HHDT
CCB Monitoring Wells Custom Report, 4/27/2023
17 / 18
5.4. Vehicles
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)
Site Restoration 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Yards)Material Exported (Cubic Yards)Acres Graded (acres)Material Demolished (sq. ft.)Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation ——0.00 0.00 —
Critical Drilling —40.0 0.00 0.00 —
Site Restoration 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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
User Defined Industrial 0.00 0%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
CCB Monitoring Wells Custom Report, 4/27/2023
18 / 18
2024 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Engineer-provided construction schedule for one well Construction: Off-Road Equipment Engineer-provided info.
Construction: Trips and VMT Up to 10 workers during each phase. 1 delivery/water truck trip per day. Max trip distance of 300 miles for vendor delivery. 60 round-trip truck trips for hauling produced groundwater one mile to stormwater detention basin.
Construction: Architectural Coatings Wells do not include components that would receive architectural coatings.
Land Use Size of monitoring well - 25 sf
Construction: On-Road Fugitive Dust On-site truck trips used as proxy for transporting produced groundwater to SW basin via paved roadway network.
CCB Monitoring Wells Quarterly Report, 4/27/2023
1 / 3
CCB Monitoring Wells Quarterly 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
2.1.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.1.2. Construction Quarters
CCB Monitoring Wells Quarterly Report, 4/27/2023
2 / 3
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name CCB Monitoring Wells
Construction Start Date 1/1/2024
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s)3.20
Precipitation (days)1.60
Location 980 Huber St, Grover Beach, CA 93433, USA
County San Luis Obispo
City Grover Beach
Air District San Luis Obispo County APCD
Air Basin South Central Coast
TAZ 3319
EDFZ 6
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.11
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
Industrial
0.00 User Defined Unit < 0.005 0.00 ————
CCB Monitoring Wells Quarterly Report, 4/27/2023
3 / 3
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions
2.1.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (ton/quarter) and GHGs (MT/quarter) Un/Mit.ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Q1 ——————————————
Unmit.0.01 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.4 Quarterly
(Max)
——————————————
Unmit.0.01 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.4
2.1.2. Construction Quarters
Quarter Start Date End Date Length (days)
Q1 1/1/2024 2/15/2024 46
CCB ATF Complex v2 Custom Report, 5/4/2023
1 / 33
CCB ATF Complex v2 Custom 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 Year, Unmitigated
2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
3.2. Site Preparation (2024) - Mitigated
3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
3.4. Grading (2024) - Mitigated
3.5. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
CCB ATF Complex v2 Custom Report, 5/4/2023
2 / 33
3.6. Building Construction (2024) - Mitigated
3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
3.8. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
3.9. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
3.10. Paving (2025) - Mitigated
3.11. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
3.12. Architectural Coating (2025) - Mitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.2.2. Mitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.3.2. Mitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
CCB ATF Complex v2 Custom Report, 5/4/2023
3 / 33
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
8. User Changes to Default Data
CCB ATF Complex v2 Custom Report, 5/4/2023
4 / 33
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name CCB ATF Complex v2
Construction Start Date 1/1/2024
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s)3.20
Precipitation (days)1.60
Location 980 Huber St, Grover Beach, CA 93433, USA
County San Luis Obispo
City Grover Beach
Air District San Luis Obispo County APCD
Air Basin South Central Coast
TAZ 3319
EDFZ 6
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.12
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
General Light
Industry
25.0 1000sqft 0.64 25,000 3,000 ———
CCB ATF Complex v2 Custom Report, 5/4/2023
5 / 33
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector #Measure Title
Construction C-5 Use Advanced Engine Tiers
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.ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————
Unmit.1.97 17.4 19.0 0.03 0.79 7.43 8.22 0.73 3.51 4.24 3,266 0.17 0.17 3,294 Mit.0.49 4.07 17.9 0.03 0.06 7.43 7.49 0.06 3.51 3.56 3,266 0.17 0.17 3,294 % Reduced 75%77%6%—93%—9%92%—16%————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————
Unmit.24.0 17.5 18.9 0.03 0.79 7.43 8.23 0.73 3.51 4.24 3,254 0.18 0.17 3,279 Mit.23.9 4.19 17.8 0.03 0.06 7.43 7.49 0.06 3.51 3.56 3,254 0.18 0.17 3,279 % Reduced < 0.5%76%6%—93%—9%92%—16%————
Average
Daily (Max)
——————————————
Unmit.2.10 8.58 9.53 0.02 0.33 1.64 1.97 0.30 0.71 1.01 2,070 0.11 0.11 2,102 Mit.1.74 2.64 10.3 0.02 0.03 1.64 1.68 0.03 0.71 0.74 2,070 0.11 0.11 2,102 % Reduced 17%69%-8%—90%—15%89%—27%————
Annual
(Max)
——————————————
Unmit.0.38 1.57 1.74 < 0.005 0.06 0.30 0.36 0.05 0.13 0.18 343 0.02 0.02 348
CCB ATF Complex v2 Custom Report, 5/4/2023
6 / 33
Mit.0.32 0.48 1.87 < 0.005 0.01 0.30 0.31 0.01 0.13 0.13 343 0.02 0.02 348 % Reduced 17%69%-8%—90%—15%89%—27%————
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
——————————————
2024 1.97 17.4 19.0 0.03 0.79 7.43 8.22 0.73 3.51 4.24 3,266 0.17 0.17 3,294 2025 1.02 10.1 11.7 0.02 0.30 0.45 0.75 0.28 0.11 0.39 2,984 0.17 0.17 3,041 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
——————————————
2024 1.97 17.5 18.9 0.03 0.79 7.43 8.23 0.73 3.51 4.24 3,254 0.18 0.17 3,279 2025 24.0 10.2 11.8 0.02 0.30 0.45 0.75 0.28 0.11 0.39 2,974 0.16 0.17 3,028 Average
Daily
——————————————
2024 0.91 8.58 9.53 0.02 0.33 1.64 1.97 0.30 0.71 1.01 2,070 0.11 0.09 2,102 2025 2.10 6.52 7.67 0.02 0.20 0.31 0.50 0.18 0.08 0.26 1,911 0.10 0.11 1,946 Annual ——————————————
2024 0.17 1.57 1.74 < 0.005 0.06 0.30 0.36 0.05 0.13 0.18 343 0.02 0.02 348 2025 0.38 1.19 1.40 < 0.005 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.03 0.01 0.05 316 0.02 0.02 322
2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e
CCB ATF Complex v2 Custom Report, 5/4/2023
7 / 33
——————————————Daily -
Summer
(Max)
2024 0.49 4.07 17.9 0.03 0.06 7.43 7.49 0.06 3.51 3.56 3,266 0.17 0.17 3,294 2025 0.48 3.99 13.8 0.02 0.05 0.45 0.50 0.04 0.11 0.16 2,984 0.17 0.17 3,041 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
——————————————
2024 0.47 4.19 17.8 0.03 0.06 7.43 7.49 0.06 3.51 3.56 3,254 0.18 0.17 3,279 2025 23.9 4.11 13.8 0.02 0.05 0.45 0.50 0.04 0.11 0.16 2,974 0.16 0.17 3,028 Average
Daily
——————————————
2024 0.33 2.27 10.3 0.02 0.03 1.64 1.68 0.03 0.71 0.74 2,070 0.11 0.09 2,102 2025 1.74 2.64 8.93 0.02 0.03 0.31 0.33 0.03 0.08 0.10 1,911 0.10 0.11 1,946 Annual ——————————————
2024 0.06 0.42 1.87 < 0.005 0.01 0.30 0.31 0.01 0.13 0.13 343 0.02 0.02 348 2025 0.32 0.48 1.63 < 0.005 0.01 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 316 0.02 0.02 322
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite ——————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————
CCB ATF Complex v2 Custom Report, 5/4/2023
8 / 33
Off-Road
Equipment
0.59 5.40 6.60 0.01 0.29 —0.29 0.26 —0.26 1,010 0.04 0.01 1,014 Dust From
Material
Movement
—————0.53 0.53 —0.06 0.06 ————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 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
0.05 0.49 0.60 < 0.005 0.03 —0.03 0.02 —0.02 91.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 91.7 Dust From
Material
Movement
—————0.05 0.05 —0.01 0.01 ————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 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
0.01 0.09 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 15.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 15.2 Dust From
Material
Movement
—————0.01 0.01 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 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 0.21 0.15 1.70 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07 298 0.02 0.01 302 Vendor < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 45.7 < 0.005 0.01 47.8 Hauling < 0.005 0.22 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 149 0.01 0.02 156 Average
Daily
——————————————
CCB ATF Complex v2 Custom Report, 5/4/2023
9 / 33
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 27.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 27.6 Vendor < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.32 Hauling < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 14.1 Annual ——————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.56 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.72 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.34
3.2. Site Preparation (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite ——————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.10 0.50 7.06 0.01 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 1,010 0.04 0.01 1,014 Dust From
Material
Movement
—————0.53 0.53 —0.06 0.06 ————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 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
0.01 0.04 0.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 91.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 91.7 Dust From
Material
Movement
—————0.05 0.05 —0.01 0.01 ————
CCB ATF Complex v2 Custom Report, 5/4/2023
10 / 33
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 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
< 0.005 0.01 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 15.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 15.2 Dust From
Material
Movement
—————0.01 0.01 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 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 0.21 0.15 1.70 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07 298 0.02 0.01 302 Vendor < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 45.7 < 0.005 0.01 47.8 Hauling < 0.005 0.22 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 149 0.01 0.02 156 Average
Daily
——————————————
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 27.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 27.6 Vendor < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.32 Hauling < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 14.1 Annual ——————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.56 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.72 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.34
3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
CCB ATF Complex v2 Custom Report, 5/4/2023
11 / 33
Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite ——————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.75 16.9 17.1 0.02 0.79 —0.79 0.73 —0.73 2,708 0.11 0.02 2,717 Dust From
Material
Movement
—————7.08 7.08 —3.42 3.42 ————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 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
1.75 16.9 17.1 0.02 0.79 —0.79 0.73 —0.73 2,708 0.11 0.02 2,717 Dust From
Material
Movement
—————7.08 7.08 —3.42 3.42 ————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 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 3.11 3.14 < 0.005 0.14 —0.14 0.13 —0.13 497 0.02 < 0.005 499 Dust From
Material
Movement
—————1.30 1.30 —0.63 0.63 ————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 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 0.57 0.57 < 0.005 0.03 —0.03 0.02 —0.02 82.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 82.6 Dust From
Material
Movement
—————0.24 0.24 —0.11 0.11 ————
CCB ATF Complex v2 Custom Report, 5/4/2023
12 / 33
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 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 0.21 0.14 1.75 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07 311 0.02 0.01 316 Vendor < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 45.7 < 0.005 0.01 47.9 Hauling < 0.005 0.29 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 202 0.01 0.03 213 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————
Worker 0.21 0.15 1.70 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07 298 0.02 0.01 302 Vendor < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 45.7 < 0.005 0.01 47.8 Hauling < 0.005 0.30 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 202 0.01 0.03 212 Average
Daily
——————————————
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 55.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 55.9 Vendor < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 8.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 8.78 Hauling < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 37.2 < 0.005 0.01 39.0 Annual ——————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.26 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.45 Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.45
3.4. Grading (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite ——————————————
CCB ATF Complex v2 Custom Report, 5/4/2023
13 / 33
——————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Off-Road
Equipment
0.25 1.33 16.0 0.02 0.05 —0.05 0.05 —0.05 2,708 0.11 0.02 2,717 Dust From
Material
Movement
—————7.08 7.08 —3.42 3.42 ————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 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
0.25 1.33 16.0 0.02 0.05 —0.05 0.05 —0.05 2,708 0.11 0.02 2,717 Dust From
Material
Movement
—————7.08 7.08 —3.42 3.42 ————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 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
0.05 0.24 2.94 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 497 0.02 < 0.005 499 Dust From
Material
Movement
—————1.30 1.30 —0.63 0.63 ————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 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
0.01 0.04 0.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 82.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 82.6 Dust From
Material
Movement
—————0.24 0.24 —0.11 0.11 ————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 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 ——————————————
CCB ATF Complex v2 Custom Report, 5/4/2023
14 / 33
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————
Worker 0.21 0.14 1.75 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07 311 0.02 0.01 316 Vendor < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 45.7 < 0.005 0.01 47.9 Hauling < 0.005 0.29 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 202 0.01 0.03 213 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————
Worker 0.21 0.15 1.70 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07 298 0.02 0.01 302 Vendor < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 45.7 < 0.005 0.01 47.8 Hauling < 0.005 0.30 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 202 0.01 0.03 212 Average
Daily
——————————————
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 55.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 55.9 Vendor < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 8.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 8.78 Hauling < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 37.2 < 0.005 0.01 39.0 Annual ——————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.26 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.45 Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.45
3.5. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite ——————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————
CCB ATF Complex v2 Custom Report, 5/4/2023
15 / 33
1,8060.010.071,8000.31—0.310.34—0.340.028.557.600.76Off-Road Equipment
Onsite truck 0.10 2.84 1.53 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.05 758 0.08 0.12 797 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.76 7.60 8.55 0.02 0.34 —0.34 0.31 —0.31 1,800 0.07 0.01 1,806 Onsite truck 0.09 2.94 1.58 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.05 761 0.08 0.12 798 Average
Daily
——————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.34 3.39 3.82 0.01 0.15 —0.15 0.14 —0.14 803 0.03 0.01 806 Onsite truck 0.04 1.29 0.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 339 0.03 0.05 356 Annual ——————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.06 0.62 0.70 < 0.005 0.03 —0.03 0.03 —0.03 133 0.01 < 0.005 133 Onsite truck 0.01 0.24 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 56.1 0.01 0.01 58.9 Offsite ——————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————
Worker 0.21 0.14 1.75 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07 311 0.02 0.01 316 Vendor 0.01 0.21 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 137 < 0.005 0.02 144 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————
Worker 0.21 0.15 1.70 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07 298 0.02 0.01 302 Vendor 0.01 0.21 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 137 < 0.005 0.02 143 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
CCB ATF Complex v2 Custom Report, 5/4/2023
16 / 33
——————————————Average
Daily
Worker 0.09 0.07 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 134 0.01 0.01 136 Vendor < 0.005 0.10 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 61.2 < 0.005 0.01 64.0 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 Annual ——————————————
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 22.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 22.5 Vendor < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 10.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 10.6 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
3.6. Building Construction (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite ——————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.17 0.89 10.5 0.02 0.03 —0.03 0.03 —0.03 1,800 0.07 0.01 1,806 Onsite truck 0.10 2.84 1.53 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.05 758 0.08 0.12 797 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.17 0.89 10.5 0.02 0.03 —0.03 0.03 —0.03 1,800 0.07 0.01 1,806 Onsite truck 0.09 2.94 1.58 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.05 761 0.08 0.12 798 Average
Daily
——————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.08 0.40 4.70 0.01 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 803 0.03 0.01 806
CCB ATF Complex v2 Custom Report, 5/4/2023
17 / 33
Onsite truck 0.04 1.29 0.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 339 0.03 0.05 356 Annual ——————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.07 0.86 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 133 0.01 < 0.005 133 Onsite truck 0.01 0.24 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 56.1 0.01 0.01 58.9 Offsite ——————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————
Worker 0.21 0.14 1.75 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07 311 0.02 0.01 316 Vendor 0.01 0.21 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 137 < 0.005 0.02 144 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————
Worker 0.21 0.15 1.70 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07 298 0.02 0.01 302 Vendor 0.01 0.21 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 137 < 0.005 0.02 143 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 Average
Daily
——————————————
Worker 0.09 0.07 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 134 0.01 0.01 136 Vendor < 0.005 0.10 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 61.2 < 0.005 0.01 64.0 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 Annual ——————————————
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 22.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 22.5 Vendor < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 10.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 10.6 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
3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
CCB ATF Complex v2 Custom Report, 5/4/2023
18 / 33
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite ——————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.71 6.97 8.50 0.02 0.29 —0.29 0.27 —0.27 1,800 0.07 0.01 1,806 Onsite truck 0.10 2.78 1.53 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.04 744 0.07 0.12 783 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.71 6.97 8.50 0.02 0.29 —0.29 0.27 —0.27 1,800 0.07 0.01 1,806 Onsite truck 0.09 2.88 1.58 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.04 747 0.07 0.12 785 Average
Daily
——————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.44 4.34 5.29 0.01 0.18 —0.18 0.17 —0.17 1,120 0.05 0.01 1,124 Onsite truck 0.06 1.77 0.97 < 0.005 0.01 0.08 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 464 0.05 0.08 488 Annual ——————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.08 0.79 0.97 < 0.005 0.03 —0.03 0.03 —0.03 185 0.01 < 0.005 186 Onsite truck 0.01 0.32 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 76.8 0.01 0.01 80.7 Offsite ——————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————
Worker 0.20 0.13 1.63 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07 305 0.02 0.01 311 Vendor 0.01 0.20 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 135 < 0.005 0.02 141 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
CCB ATF Complex v2 Custom Report, 5/4/2023
19 / 33
——————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.20 0.14 1.59 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07 292 0.01 0.01 296 Vendor 0.01 0.20 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 135 < 0.005 0.02 141 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 Average
Daily
——————————————
Worker 0.12 0.09 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.04 183 0.01 0.01 186 Vendor < 0.005 0.13 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 83.9 < 0.005 0.01 87.8 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 Annual ——————————————
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 30.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 30.8 Vendor < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 14.5 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
3.8. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite ——————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.17 0.89 10.5 0.02 0.03 —0.03 0.03 —0.03 1,800 0.07 0.01 1,806 Onsite truck 0.10 2.78 1.53 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.04 744 0.07 0.12 783 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————
CCB ATF Complex v2 Custom Report, 5/4/2023
20 / 33
1,8060.010.071,8000.03—0.030.03—0.030.0210.50.890.17Off-Road Equipment
Onsite truck 0.09 2.88 1.58 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.04 747 0.07 0.12 785 Average
Daily
——————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.11 0.55 6.56 0.01 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 1,120 0.05 0.01 1,124 Onsite truck 0.06 1.77 0.97 < 0.005 0.01 0.08 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 464 0.05 0.08 488 Annual ——————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.10 1.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 185 0.01 < 0.005 186 Onsite truck 0.01 0.32 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 76.8 0.01 0.01 80.7 Offsite ——————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————
Worker 0.20 0.13 1.63 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07 305 0.02 0.01 311 Vendor 0.01 0.20 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 135 < 0.005 0.02 141 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————
Worker 0.20 0.14 1.59 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07 292 0.01 0.01 296 Vendor 0.01 0.20 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 135 < 0.005 0.02 141 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 Average
Daily
——————————————
Worker 0.12 0.09 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.04 183 0.01 0.01 186 Vendor < 0.005 0.13 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 83.9 < 0.005 0.01 87.8 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 Annual ——————————————
CCB ATF Complex v2 Custom Report, 5/4/2023
21 / 33
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 30.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 30.8 Vendor < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 14.5 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
3.9. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite ——————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.58 4.88 6.28 0.01 0.22 —0.22 0.20 —0.20 946 0.04 0.01 949 Paving 0.00 —————————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 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
0.02 0.13 0.17 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 25.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 26.0 Paving 0.00 —————————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 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
< 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 4.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.31 Paving 0.00 —————————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 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 ——————————————
CCB ATF Complex v2 Custom Report, 5/4/2023
22 / 33
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————
Worker 0.20 0.14 1.59 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07 292 0.01 0.01 296 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 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 Average
Daily
——————————————
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 8.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 8.19 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 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 Annual ——————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.36 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 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
3.10. Paving (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite ——————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.16 2.04 6.55 0.01 0.03 —0.03 0.03 —0.03 946 0.04 0.01 949
CCB ATF Complex v2 Custom Report, 5/4/2023
23 / 33
Paving 0.00 —————————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 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
< 0.005 0.06 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 25.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 26.0 Paving 0.00 —————————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 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
< 0.005 0.01 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 4.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.31 Paving 0.00 —————————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 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 0.20 0.14 1.59 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07 292 0.01 0.01 296 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 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 Average
Daily
——————————————
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 8.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 8.19 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 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 Annual ——————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.36
CCB ATF Complex v2 Custom Report, 5/4/2023
24 / 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 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
3.11. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite ——————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 —0.03 0.03 —0.03 134 0.01 < 0.005 134 Architectura
l
Coatings
23.7 —————————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 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
0.01 0.05 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 8.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 8.08 Architectura
l
Coatings
1.43 —————————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 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
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 1.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.34
CCB ATF Complex v2 Custom Report, 5/4/2023
25 / 33
—————————————0.26Architectura
l
Coatings
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 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 0.20 0.14 1.59 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07 292 0.01 0.01 296 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 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 Average
Daily
——————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 17.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 18.0 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 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 Annual ——————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.94 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.98 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 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
3.12. Architectural Coating (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite ——————————————
CCB ATF Complex v2 Custom Report, 5/4/2023
26 / 33
——————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.65 0.96 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 134 0.01 < 0.005 134 Architectura
l
Coatings
23.7 —————————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 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
< 0.005 0.04 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 8.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 8.08 Architectura
l
Coatings
1.43 —————————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 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
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 1.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.34 Architectura
l
Coatings
0.26 —————————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 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)
——————————————
CCB ATF Complex v2 Custom Report, 5/4/2023
27 / 33
Worker 0.20 0.14 1.59 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07 292 0.01 0.01 296 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 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 Average
Daily
——————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 17.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 18.0 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 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 Annual ——————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.94 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.98 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 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
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/1/2024 2/14/2024 5.00 33.0 — Grading Grading 2/15/2024 5/17/2024 5.00 67.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 5/18/2024 11/14/2025 5.00 390 — Paving Paving 11/15/2025 11/29/2025 5.00 10.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 11/30/2025 12/30/2025 5.00 22.0 —
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
CCB ATF Complex v2 Custom Report, 5/4/2023
28 / 33
Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 82.0 0.20 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Graders Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Forklifts Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Graders Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
CCB ATF Complex v2 Custom Report, 5/4/2023
29 / 33
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 6.00 82.0 0.20 Paving Pavers Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Paving Rollers Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation ————
Site Preparation Worker 50.0 8.10 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor 2.00 6.90 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 2.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck ——HHDT
Grading ————
Grading Worker 50.0 8.10 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor 2.00 6.90 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 2.72 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck ——HHDT
Building Construction ————
Building Construction Worker 50.0 8.10 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
CCB ATF Complex v2 Custom Report, 5/4/2023
30 / 33
Building Construction Vendor 6.00 6.90 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck 144 1.00 HHDT
Paving ————
Paving Worker 50.0 8.10 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor 0.00 6.90 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck ——HHDT
Architectural Coating ————
Architectural Coating Worker 50.0 8.10 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor 0.00 6.90 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck ——HHDT
5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation ————
Site Preparation Worker 50.0 8.10 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor 2.00 6.90 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 2.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck ——HHDT
Grading ————
Grading Worker 50.0 8.10 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor 2.00 6.90 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 2.72 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck ——HHDT
Building Construction ————
CCB ATF Complex v2 Custom Report, 5/4/2023
31 / 33
Building Construction Worker 50.0 8.10 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 6.00 6.90 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck 144 1.00 HHDT
Paving ————
Paving Worker 50.0 8.10 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor 0.00 6.90 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck ——HHDT
Architectural Coating ————
Architectural Coating Worker 50.0 8.10 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor 0.00 6.90 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck ——HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
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)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 37,500 12,500 —
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
CCB ATF Complex v2 Custom Report, 5/4/2023
32 / 33
Phase Name Material Imported (cy)Material Exported (cy)Acres Graded (acres)Material Demolished (sq. ft.)Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation ——16.5 0.00 —
Grading —1,451 201 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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
General Light Industry 0.00 0%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2024 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2025 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Based on current site plan
Construction: Construction Phases Provided by engineer.
Construction: Off-Road Equipment Info provided by engineer.
Construction: Architectural Coatings SLOAPCD Rule 433
Construction: Trips and VMT Info provided by engineer. Average 72 round-trip truck trips for hauling produced groundwater one mile to stormwater detention basin.
CCB ATF Complex v2 Custom Report, 5/4/2023
33 / 33
Construction: On-Road Fugitive Dust On-site truck trips used as proxy for transporting produced groundwater to SW basin via paved roadway network.
CCB ATF Complex v2 Quarterly Report, 5/4/2023
1 / 5
CCB ATF Complex v2 Quarterly 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
2.1.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.1.2. Construction Quarters
CCB ATF Complex v2 Quarterly Report, 5/4/2023
2 / 5
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name CCB ATF Complex v2
Construction Start Date 1/1/2024
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s)3.20
Precipitation (days)1.60
Location 980 Huber St, Grover Beach, CA 93433, USA
County San Luis Obispo
City Grover Beach
Air District San Luis Obispo County APCD
Air Basin South Central Coast
TAZ 3319
EDFZ 6
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.12
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
General Light
Industry
25.0 1000sqft 0.64 25,000 3,000 ———
CCB ATF Complex v2 Quarterly Report, 5/4/2023
3 / 5
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector #Measure Title
Construction C-5 Use Advanced Engine Tiers
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions
2.1.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (ton/quarter) and GHGs (MT/quarter) Un/Mit.ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Q1 ——————————————
Unmit.0.08 0.78 0.79 < 0.005 0.04 0.28 0.28 0.03 0.15 0.15 113 < 0.005 < 0.005 113 Mit.0.01 0.06 0.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.28 0.28 < 0.005 0.15 0.15 113 < 0.005 < 0.005 113 % Reduced 85%92%6%—94%——93%——————
Q2 ——————————————
Unmit.0.08 0.80 0.80 < 0.005 0.04 0.28 0.28 0.03 0.16 0.16 144 0.01 0.01 144 Mit.0.02 0.20 0.93 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.28 0.28 < 0.005 0.16 0.16 144 0.01 0.01 144 % Reduced 70%74%-15%—92%——91%——————
Q3 ——————————————
Unmit.0.13 1.33 1.55 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.05 297 0.01 0.02 298 Mit.0.05 0.42 1.92 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.02 297 0.01 0.02 298 % Reduced 62%68%-24%—89%——88%—66%————
Q4 ——————————————
Unmit.0.13 1.33 1.55 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.05 297 0.01 0.02 298 Mit.0.05 0.42 1.92 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.02 297 0.01 0.02 298 % Reduced 62%68%-24%—89%——88%—66%————
CCB ATF Complex v2 Quarterly Report, 5/4/2023
4 / 5
Q5 ——————————————
Unmit.0.13 1.33 1.55 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.05 297 0.01 0.02 298 Mit.0.05 0.42 1.92 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.02 297 0.01 0.02 298 % Reduced 62%68%-24%—89%——88%—66%————
Q6 ——————————————
Unmit.0.13 1.33 1.55 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.05 297 0.01 0.02 298 Mit.0.05 0.42 1.92 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.02 297 0.01 0.02 298 % Reduced 62%68%-24%—89%——88%—66%————
Q7 ——————————————
Unmit.0.13 1.33 1.55 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.05 297 0.01 0.02 298 Mit.0.05 0.42 1.92 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.02 297 0.01 0.02 298 % Reduced 62%68%-24%—89%——88%—66%————
Q8 ——————————————
Unmit.0.34 0.68 0.80 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.03 153 0.01 0.01 154 Mit.0.34 0.22 0.99 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 153 0.01 0.01 154 % Reduced —68%-24%—89%——88%—66%————
Q9 ——————————————
Unmit.0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.26 Mit.0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.26 % Reduced —27%15%—91%——91%——————
Quarterly
(Max)
——————————————
Unmit.0.34 1.33 1.55 < 0.005 0.06 0.28 0.28 0.05 0.16 0.16 297 0.01 0.02 298 Mit.0.34 0.42 1.92 < 0.005 0.01 0.28 0.28 0.01 0.16 0.16 297 0.01 0.02 298 % Reduced —68%-24%—89%——88%——————
2.1.2. Construction Quarters
CCB ATF Complex v2 Quarterly Report, 5/4/2023
5 / 5
Quarter Start Date End Date Length (days)
Q1 1/1/2024 3/31/2024 91
Q2 4/1/2024 6/30/2024 91
Q3 7/1/2024 9/29/2024 91
Q4 9/30/2024 12/29/2024 91
Q5 12/30/2024 3/30/2025 91
Q6 3/31/2025 6/29/2025 91
Q7 6/30/2025 9/28/2025 91
Q8 9/29/2025 12/28/2025 91
Q9 12/29/2025 12/30/2025 2
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 5/4/2023 Road Construction Emissions Model Version 9.0.0
Data Entry Worksheet
Months
Optional data input sections have a blue background. Only areas with a Grubbing/Land Clearing 1.80 yellow or blue background can be modified. Program defaults have a white background. Grading/Excavation 8.10 The user is required to enter information in cells D10 through D24, E28 through G35, and D38 through D41 for all project types.Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 5.40 Please use "Clear Data Input & User Overrides" button first before changing the Project Type or begin a new project.Paving 2.70 Input Type
Project Name CCB Water Distribution Pipelines - Phase I Construction Start Year 2024 Enter a Year between 2014
and 2040 (inclusive)
Project Type 1) New Road Construction : Project to build a roadway from bare ground, which generally requires more site preparation than widening an existing roadway 2) Road Widening : Project to add a new lane to an existing roadway 3) Bridge/Overpass Construction : Project to build an elevated roadway, which generally requires some different equipment than a new roadway, such as a crane 4) Other Linear Project Type: Non-roadway project such as a pipeline, transmission line, or levee construction Project Construction Time 18.00 months
Working Days per Month 22.00 days (assume 22 if unknown) Predominant Soil/Site Type: Enter 1, 2, or 3 1) Sand Gravel : Use for quaternary deposits (Delta/West County) 2) Weathered Rock-Earth : Use for Laguna formation (Jackson Highway area) or the Ione formation (Scott Road, Rancho Murieta) 3) Blasted Rock : Use for Salt Springs Slate or Copper Hill Volcanics (Folsom South of Highway 50, Rancho Murieta) Project Length 5.68 miles
Total Project Area 2.07 acres
Maximum Area Disturbed/Day 0.04 acres
Water Trucks Used?1 1. Yes
2. No
Material Hauling Quantity Input
Material Type Phase Haul Truck Capacity (yd3) (assume 20 if unknown)Import Volume (yd3/day) Export Volume (yd
3/day)
Grubbing/Land Clearing 20.00
Grading/Excavation 20.00 168.40
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 20.00 167.98
Paving 20.00
Grubbing/Land Clearing 20.00 41.68
Grading/Excavation 20.00
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 20.00
Paving 20.00 28.06
Mitigation Options EF source
On-road Fleet Emissions Mitigation Select "2010 and Newer On-road Vehicles Fleet" option when the on-road heavy-duty truck fleet for the project will be limited to vehicles of model year 2010 or newer on-road EMFAC2017 Off-road Equipment Emissions Mitigation
Select "Tier 4 Equipment" option if some or all off-road equipment used for the project meets CARB Tier 4 Standard Will all off-road equipment be tier 4?
The remaining sections of this sheet contain areas that require modification when 'Other Project Type' is selected.
Note: The program's estimates of construction period phase length can be overridden in cells D50 through D53, and F50 through F53.
Program Program
User Override of Calculated User Override of Default Program Calculated Activity Fractions Construction Periods Construction Months Months Phase Starting Date Phase Starting Date start date end date Grubbing/Land Clearing 1.80 1/1/2024 1/1/2024 2/24/2024 Grading/Excavation 8.10 2/25/2024 2/25/2024 10/28/2024
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 5.40 10/29/2024 10/29/2024 4/11/2025 Paving 2.70 4/12/2025 4/12/2025 7/3/2025
Totals (Months)
Note: Soil Hauling emission default values can be overridden in cells D61 through D64, and F61 through F64.
Soil Hauling Emissions User Override of Program Estimate of User Override of Truck Default Values Calculated User Input Miles/Round Trip Miles/Round Trip Round Trips/Day Round Trips/Day Daily VMT Miles/round trip: Grubbing/Land Clearing 20.00 0.00 0 0.00 Miles/round trip: Grading/Excavation 20.00 0.00 9 180.00 Miles/round trip: Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 20.00 0.00 9 180.00 Miles/round trip: Paving 20.00 0.00 0 0.00
Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile)0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile)0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile)0.04 0.43 3.47 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,690.65 0.00 0.27 1,769.89 Paving (grams/mile)0.04 0.43 3.46 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,682.27 0.00 0.26 1,761.12 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 4.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 4.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.02 0.17 1.47 0.05 0.02 0.01 676.25 0.00 0.11 707.95 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.02 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 60.25 0.00 0.01 63.08 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.02 0.17 1.47 0.05 0.02 0.01 670.91 0.00 0.11 702.35 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.85 0.00 0.01
41.72 Pounds per day - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 Total tons per construction project 0.00 0.03 0.22 0.01 0.00 0.00 100.11 0.00 0.02 104.80
Note: Asphalt Hauling emission default values can be overridden in cells D91 through D94, and F91 through F94.
Asphalt Hauling Emissions User Override of Program Estimate of User Override of Truck Default Values Calculated User Input Miles/Round Trip Miles/Round Trip Round Trips/Day Round Trips/Day Daily VMT Miles/round trip: Grubbing/Land Clearing 20.00 0.00 3 60.00 (for project within "Sacramento County", follow soil type selection instructions in cells E18 to E20 otherwise see instructions provided in cells J18 to J22)
2 Soil
Asphalt
No Mitigation
All Tier 4 Equipment
For 4: Other Linear Project Type, please provide project specific off- road equipment population and vehicle trip data
Please note that the soil type instructions provided in cells E18 to E20 are specific to Sacramento County. Maps available from the California Geologic Survey (see weblink below) can be used to determine soil type outside Sacramento County.
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/information/geologic_mapping/Pa ges/googlemaps.aspx#regionalseries
4 Note: Required data input sections have a yellow background.
No Mitigation
18 Select "20% NOx and 45% Exhaust PM reduction" option if the project will be required to use a lower emitting off-road construction fleet. The SMAQMD Construction Mitigation Calculator can be used to confirm compliance with this mitigation measure ( http://www.airquality.org/Businesses/CEQA-Land-Use-Planning/Mitigation) .
To begin a new project, click this button to
clear data previously entered. This button
will only work if you opted not to disable
macros when loading this spreadsheet.
Data Entry Worksheet 6
SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN
AIR QUALITY
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
[I J
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 5/4/2023 Miles/round trip: Grading/Excavation 20.00 0.00 0 0.00
Miles/round trip: Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 20.00 0.00 0 0.00 Miles/round trip: Paving 20.00 0.00 2 40.00
Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile)0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile)0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile)0.04 0.43 3.47 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,690.65 0.00 0.27 1,769.89 Paving (grams/mile)0.04 0.43 3.46 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,682.27 0.00 0.26 1,761.12 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 4.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 4.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.01 0.06 0.49 0.02 0.01 0.00 225.42 0.00 0.04 235.98 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.46 0.00 0.00 4.67 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Paving 0.00 0.04 0.32 0.01 0.00 0.00 148.35 0.00 0.02 155.30 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.41 0.00 0.00 4.61 Total tons per construction project 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.87 0.00 0.00 9.29 Data Entry Worksheet 7
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 5/4/2023 Note: Worker commute default values can be overridden in cells D121 through D126.
Worker Commute Emissions User Override of Worker
User Input Commute Default Values Default Values
Miles/ one-way trip 13 0 Calculated Calculated
One-way trips/day 2 0 Daily Trips Daily VMT
No. of employees: Grubbing/Land Clearing 20 0 40 520.00 No. of employees: Grading/Excavation 20 0 40 520.00
No. of employees: Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 20 0 40 520.00 No. of employees: Paving 20 0 40 520.00
Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile)0.01 0.84 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.00 306.70 0.00 0.01 308.54 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile)0.01 0.84 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.00 306.70 0.00 0.01 308.54 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile)0.01 0.80 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.00 300.00 0.00 0.01 301.75 Paving (grams/mile)0.01 0.78 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.00 295.84 0.00 0.01 297.52 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip)0.98 2.66 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 65.99 0.07 0.03 76.61 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip)0.98 2.66 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 65.99 0.07 0.03 76.61 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip)0.95 2.60 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 64.60 0.06 0.03 74.86 Paving (grams/trip)0.93 2.56 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 63.73 0.06 0.03 73.77 Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.10 1.20 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.00 357.42 0.01 0.01 360.47 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.08 0.00 0.00 7.14 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.10 1.20 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.00 357.42 0.01 0.01 360.47 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.01 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.85 0.00 0.00 32.12 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.10 1.15 0.09 0.05 0.02 0.00 349.62 0.01 0.01 352.53 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.77 0.00 0.00 20.94 Pounds per day - Paving 0.10 1.12 0.09 0.05 0.02 0.00 344.77 0.01 0.01 347.59 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.24 0.00 0.00 10.32 Total tons per construction project 0.02 0.23 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 69.93 0.00 0.00 70.52 Note: Water Truck default values can be overridden in cells D153 through D156, I153 through I156, and F153 through F156.
Water Truck Emissions User Override of Program Estimate of User Override of Truck Default Values Calculated User Override of Default Values Calculated User Input Default # Water Trucks Number of Water Trucks Round Trips/Vehicle/Day Round Trips/Vehicle/Day Trips/day Miles/Round Trip Miles/Round Trip Daily VMT Grubbing/Land Clearing - Exhaust 1 0 1.00 0 1 20.00 0.00 20.00 Grading/Excavation - Exhaust 1 0 1.00 0 1 20.00 0.00 20.00 Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade 1 0 1.00 0 1 20.00 0.00 20.00 Paving 1 0 1.00 0 1 20.00 0.00 20.00
Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile)0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile)0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile)0.04 0.43 3.47 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,690.65 0.00 0.27 1,769.89 Paving (grams/mile)0.04 0.43 3.46 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,682.27 0.00 0.26 1,761.12 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 4.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 4.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.00 75.14 0.00 0.01 78.66 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.49 0.00 0.00 1.56 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.00 75.14 0.00 0.01 78.66 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.69 0.00 0.00 7.01 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.00 74.55 0.00 0.01 78.04 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.43 0.00 0.00 4.64 Pounds per day - Paving 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.00 74.18 0.00 0.01 77.65 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.20 0.00 0.00 2.31 Total tons per construction project 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.81 0.00 0.00 15.51 Note: Fugitive dust default values can be overridden in cells D183 through D185.
User Override of Max Default PM10 PM10 PM2.5 PM2.5
Acreage Disturbed/Day Maximum Acreage/Day pounds/day tons/per period pounds/day tons/per period Fugitive Dust - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.04 0.40 0.01 0.08 0.00 Fugitive Dust - Grading/Excavation 0.04 0.40 0.04 0.08 0.01 Fugitive Dust - Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade 0.04 0.40 0.02 0.08 0.00 Fugitive Dust
Data Entry Worksheet 8
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 5/4/2023 Values in cells D195 through D228, D246 through D279, D297 through D330, and D348 through D381 are required when 'Other Project Type' is selected.
Off-Road Equipment Emissions
Default
Grubbing/Land Clearing Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected)Equipment Tier Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Air Compressors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.31 3.65 2.41 0.11 0.11 0.01 592.67 0.03 0.00 594.70 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crawler Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Excavators 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Generator Sets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Graders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other General Industrial Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Material Handling Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pavers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pumps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rollers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Scrapers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Signal Boards 0.06 0.30 0.36 0.01 0.01 0.00 49.31 0.01 0.00 49.56 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.29 4.47 2.90 0.13 0.12 0.01 603.53 0.20 0.01 610.03 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Grubbing/Land Clearing pounds per day 0.66 8.42 5.67 0.26 0.25 0.01 1,245.51 0.23 0.01 1,254.29 Grubbing/Land Clearing tons per phase 0.01 0.17 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.00 24.66 0.00 0.00 24.83 N/A
N/A
N/A
Equipment Tier
0.00 Number of Vehicles
0.00 0.00 N/A
Mitigation Option
0.00 0.00
N/A
0.00 0.00
N/A
N/A
Data Entry Worksheet 9
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 5/4/2023 Default
Grading/Excavation Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected)Equipment Tier Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Air Compressors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crawler Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Excavators 0.18 3.27 1.40 0.07 0.06 0.01 500.27 0.16 0.00 505.66 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Generator Sets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Graders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other General Industrial Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Material Handling Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pavers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pumps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rollers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Scrapers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Signal Boards 0.06 0.30 0.36 0.01 0.01 0.00 49.31 0.01 0.00 49.56 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.14 2.24 1.45 0.07 0.06 0.00 301.77 0.10 0.00 305.01 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Grading/Excavation pounds per day 0.38 5.80 3.21 0.15 0.14 0.01 851.35 0.26 0.01 860.24 Grading/Excavation tons per phase 0.03 0.52 0.29 0.01 0.01 0.00 75.85 0.02 0.00 76.65 N/A
N/A
Equipment Tier
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Number of Vehicles
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Mitigation Option
N/A
Data Entry Worksheet 10
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 5/4/2023 Default
Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected)Equipment Tier pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Air Compressors 0.23 2.41 1.56 0.07 0.07 0.00 375.26 0.02 0.00 376.62
1.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Bore/Drill Rigs 0.53 6.07 3.86 0.15 0.14 0.03 2,968.30 0.96 0.03 3,000.16
1.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.06 0.31 0.37 0.01 0.01 0.00 50.52 0.01 0.00 50.77 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crawler Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Excavators 0.17 3.26 1.29 0.06 0.06 0.01 500.31 0.16 0.00 505.70
1.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Forklifts 0.09 1.14 0.84 0.05 0.04 0.00 148.03 0.05 0.00 149.63
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Generator Sets 0.27 3.66 2.45 0.10 0.10 0.01 623.04 0.02 0.00 625.03 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Graders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other General Industrial Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Material Handling Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pavers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Plate Compactors 0.04 0.21 0.25 0.01 0.01 0.00 34.48 0.00 0.00 34.65 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pumps 0.29 3.72 2.48 0.11 0.11 0.01 623.04 0.03 0.00 625.08 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rollers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Loaders 0.24 1.48 2.04 0.07 0.06 0.01 605.58 0.20 0.01 612.12 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Scrapers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Signal Boards 0.06 0.30 0.36 0.01 0.01 0.00 49.31 0.01 0.00 49.56 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Welders 0.23 1.66 1.36 0.04 0.04 0.00 207.48 0.02 0.00 208.50 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade pounds per day 2.22 24.22 16.87 0.69 0.66 0.07 6,185.35 1.47 0.05 6,237.84 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade tons per phase 0.13 1.44 1.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 367.41 0.09 0.00 370.53 N/A
N/A
N/A
Equipment Tier
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Number of Vehicles
Mitigation Option
0.00 Data Entry Worksheet 11
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 5/4/2023 Default
Paving Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected)Equipment Tier Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Air Compressors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crawler Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Excavators 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Generator Sets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Graders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Trucks 0.48 3.19 2.87 0.10 0.09 0.01 1,279.68 0.41 0.01 1,293.45 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other General Industrial Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Material Handling Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pavers 0.17 2.90 1.58 0.07 0.07 0.00 454.99 0.15 0.00 459.90 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pumps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rollers 0.14 1.85 1.44 0.07 0.07 0.00 254.06 0.08 0.00 256.80 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Scrapers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Signal Boards 0.06 0.30 0.36 0.01 0.01 0.00 49.31 0.01 0.00 49.56 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paving pounds per day 0.85 8.23 6.25 0.26 0.24 0.02 2,038.05 0.65 0.02 2,059.72 Paving tons per phase 0.03 0.24 0.19 0.01 0.01 0.00 60.53 0.02 0.00 61.17 Total Emissions all Phases (tons per construction period) =>0.20 2.37 1.59 0.07 0.06 0.01 528.46 0.13 0.00 533.18 N/A
N/A
Equipment Tier
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.00 Number of Vehicles
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Mitigation Option
Data Entry Worksheet 12
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 5/4/2023 Road Construction Emissions Model Version 9.0.0
Data Entry Worksheet
Months
Optional data input sections have a blue background. Only areas with a Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.60 yellow or blue background can be modified. Program defaults have a white background. Grading/Excavation 2.70 The user is required to enter information in cells D10 through D24, E28 through G35, and D38 through D41 for all project types.Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 1.80 Please use "Clear Data Input & User Overrides" button first before changing the Project Type or begin a new project.Paving 0.90 Input Type
Project Name CCB Water Distribution Pipelines - Phase II Construction Start Year 2024 Enter a Year between 2014
and 2040 (inclusive)
Project Type 1) New Road Construction : Project to build a roadway from bare ground, which generally requires more site preparation than widening an existing roadway 2) Road Widening : Project to add a new lane to an existing roadway 3) Bridge/Overpass Construction : Project to build an elevated roadway, which generally requires some different equipment than a new roadway, such as a crane 4) Other Linear Project Type: Non-roadway project such as a pipeline, transmission line, or levee construction Project Construction Time 6.00 months
Working Days per Month 22.00 days (assume 22 if unknown) Predominant Soil/Site Type: Enter 1, 2, or 3 1) Sand Gravel : Use for quaternary deposits (Delta/West County) 2) Weathered Rock-Earth : Use for Laguna formation (Jackson Highway area) or the Ione formation (Scott Road, Rancho Murieta) 3) Blasted Rock : Use for Salt Springs Slate or Copper Hill Volcanics (Folsom South of Highway 50, Rancho Murieta) Project Length 0.17 miles
Total Project Area 0.06 acres
Maximum Area Disturbed/Day 0.04 acres
Water Trucks Used?1 1. Yes
2. No
Material Hauling Quantity Input
Material Type Phase Haul Truck Capacity (yd3) (assume 20 if unknown)Import Volume (yd3/day) Export Volume (yd
3/day)
Grubbing/Land Clearing 20.00
Grading/Excavation 20.00 15.25
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 20.00 14.83
Paving 20.00
Grubbing/Land Clearing 20.00 3.85
Grading/Excavation 20.00
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 20.00
Paving 20.00 2.53
Mitigation Options EF source
On-road Fleet Emissions Mitigation Select "2010 and Newer On-road Vehicles Fleet" option when the on-road heavy-duty truck fleet for the project will be limited to vehicles of model year 2010 or newer on-road EMFAC2017 Off-road Equipment Emissions Mitigation
Select "Tier 4 Equipment" option if some or all off-road equipment used for the project meets CARB Tier 4 Standard Will all off-road equipment be tier 4?
The remaining sections of this sheet contain areas that require modification when 'Other Project Type' is selected.
Note: The program's estimates of construction period phase length can be overridden in cells D50 through D53, and F50 through F53.
Program Program
User Override of Calculated User Override of Default Program Calculated Activity Fractions Construction Periods Construction Months Months Phase Starting Date Phase Starting Date start date end date Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.60 1/1/2024 1/1/2024 1/19/2024 Grading/Excavation 2.70 1/20/2024 1/20/2024 4/11/2024
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 1.80 4/12/2024 4/12/2024 6/5/2024 Paving 0.90 6/6/2024 6/6/2024 7/3/2024
Totals (Months)
Note: Soil Hauling emission default values can be overridden in cells D61 through D64, and F61 through F64.
Soil Hauling Emissions User Override of Program Estimate of User Override of Truck Default Values Calculated User Input Miles/Round Trip Miles/Round Trip Round Trips/Day Round Trips/Day Daily VMT Miles/round trip: Grubbing/Land Clearing 20.00 0.00 0 0.00 Miles/round trip: Grading/Excavation 20.00 0.00 1 20.00 Miles/round trip: Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 20.00 0.00 1 20.00 Miles/round trip: Paving 20.00 0.00 0 0.00
Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile)0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile)0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile)0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Paving (grams/mile)0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.00 75.14 0.00 0.01 78.66 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.23 0.00 0.00 2.34 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.00 75.14 0.00 0.01 78.66 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.49 0.00 0.00
1.56 Pounds per day - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 Total tons per construction project 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.72 0.00 0.00
3.89 Note: Asphalt Hauling emission default values can be overridden in cells D91 through D94, and F91 through F94.
Asphalt Hauling Emissions User Override of Program Estimate of User Override of Truck Default Values Calculated User Input Miles/Round Trip Miles/Round Trip Round Trips/Day Round Trips/Day Daily VMT Miles/round trip: Grubbing/Land Clearing 20.00 0.00 1 20.00 (for project within "Sacramento County", follow soil type selection instructions in cells E18 to E20 otherwise see instructions provided in cells J18 to J22)
2 Soil
Asphalt
No Mitigation
All Tier 4 Equipment
For 4: Other Linear Project Type, please provide project specific off- road equipment population and vehicle trip data
Please note that the soil type instructions provided in cells E18 to E20 are specific to Sacramento County. Maps available from the California Geologic Survey (see weblink below) can be used to determine soil type outside Sacramento County.
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/information/geologic_mapping/Pa ges/googlemaps.aspx#regionalseries
4 Note: Required data input sections have a yellow background.
No Mitigation
6 Select "20% NOx and 45% Exhaust PM reduction" option if the project will be required to use a lower emitting off-road construction fleet. The SMAQMD Construction Mitigation Calculator can be used to confirm compliance with this mitigation measure ( http://www.airquality.org/Businesses/CEQA-Land-Use-Planning/Mitigation) .
To begin a new project, click this button to
clear data previously entered. This button
will only work if you opted not to disable
macros when loading this spreadsheet.
Data Entry Worksheet 6
SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN
AIR QUALITY
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
[I J
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 5/4/2023 Miles/round trip: Grading/Excavation 20.00 0.00 0 0.00
Miles/round trip: Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 20.00 0.00 0 0.00 Miles/round trip: Paving 20.00 0.00 1 20.00
Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile)0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile)0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile)0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Paving (grams/mile)0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.00 75.14 0.00 0.01 78.66 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.52 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Paving 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.00 75.14 0.00 0.01 78.66 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.78 Total tons per construction project 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.24 0.00 0.00 1.30 Data Entry Worksheet 7
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 5/4/2023 Note: Worker commute default values can be overridden in cells D121 through D126.
Worker Commute Emissions User Override of Worker
User Input Commute Default Values Default Values
Miles/ one-way trip 13 0 Calculated Calculated
One-way trips/day 2 0 Daily Trips Daily VMT
No. of employees: Grubbing/Land Clearing 20 0 40 520.00 No. of employees: Grading/Excavation 20 0 40 520.00
No. of employees: Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 20 0 40 520.00 No. of employees: Paving 20 0 40 520.00
Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile)0.01 0.84 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.00 306.70 0.00 0.01 308.54 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile)0.01 0.84 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.00 306.70 0.00 0.01 308.54 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile)0.01 0.84 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.00 306.70 0.00 0.01 308.54 Paving (grams/mile)0.01 0.84 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.00 306.70 0.00 0.01 308.54 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip)0.98 2.66 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 65.99 0.07 0.03 76.61 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip)0.98 2.66 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 65.99 0.07 0.03 76.61 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip)0.98 2.66 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 65.99 0.07 0.03 76.61 Paving (grams/trip)0.98 2.66 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 65.99 0.07 0.03 76.61 Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.10 1.20 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.00 357.42 0.01 0.01 360.47 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.36 0.00 0.00 2.38 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.10 1.20 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.00 357.42 0.01 0.01 360.47 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.62 0.00 0.00 10.71 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.10 1.20 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.00 357.42 0.01 0.01 360.47 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.08 0.00 0.00 7.14 Pounds per day - Paving 0.10 1.20 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.00 357.42 0.01 0.01 360.47 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.54 0.00 0.00 3.57 Total tons per construction project 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.59 0.00 0.00 23.79 Note: Water Truck default values can be overridden in cells D153 through D156, I153 through I156, and F153 through F156.
Water Truck Emissions User Override of Program Estimate of User Override of Truck Default Values Calculated User Override of Default Values Calculated User Input Default # Water Trucks Number of Water Trucks Round Trips/Vehicle/Day Round Trips/Vehicle/Day Trips/day Miles/Round Trip Miles/Round Trip Daily VMT Grubbing/Land Clearing - Exhaust 1 0 1.00 0 1 20.00 0.00 20.00 Grading/Excavation - Exhaust 1 0 1.00 0 1 20.00 0.00 20.00 Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade 1 0 1.00 0 1 20.00 0.00 20.00 Paving 1 0 1.00 0 1 20.00 0.00 20.00
Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile)0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile)0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile)0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Paving (grams/mile)0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.00 75.14 0.00 0.01 78.66 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.52 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.00 75.14 0.00 0.01 78.66 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.23 0.00 0.00 2.34 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.00 75.14 0.00 0.01 78.66 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.49 0.00 0.00 1.56 Pounds per day - Paving 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.00 75.14 0.00 0.01 78.66 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.78 Total tons per construction project 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.96 0.00 0.00 5.19 Note: Fugitive dust default values can be overridden in cells D183 through D185.
User Override of Max Default PM10 PM10 PM2.5 PM2.5
Acreage Disturbed/Day Maximum Acreage/Day pounds/day tons/per period pounds/day tons/per period Fugitive Dust - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.04 0.40 0.00 0.08 0.00 Fugitive Dust - Grading/Excavation 0.04 0.40 0.01 0.08 0.00 Fugitive Dust - Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade 0.04 0.40 0.01 0.08 0.00 Fugitive Dust
Data Entry Worksheet 8
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 5/4/2023 Values in cells D195 through D228, D246 through D279, D297 through D330, and D348 through D381 are required when 'Other Project Type' is selected.
Off-Road Equipment Emissions
Default
Grubbing/Land Clearing Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected)Equipment Tier Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Air Compressors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.31 3.65 2.41 0.11 0.11 0.01 592.67 0.03 0.00 594.70 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crawler Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Excavators 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Generator Sets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Graders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other General Industrial Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Material Handling Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pavers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pumps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rollers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Scrapers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Signal Boards 0.06 0.30 0.36 0.01 0.01 0.00 49.31 0.01 0.00 49.56 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.29 4.47 2.90 0.13 0.12 0.01 603.53 0.20 0.01 610.03 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Grubbing/Land Clearing pounds per day 0.66 8.42 5.67 0.26 0.25 0.01 1,245.51 0.23 0.01 1,254.29 Grubbing/Land Clearing tons per phase 0.00 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.22 0.00 0.00 8.28 N/A
N/A
N/A
Equipment Tier
0.00 Number of Vehicles
0.00 0.00 N/A
Mitigation Option
0.00 0.00
N/A
0.00 0.00
N/A
N/A
Data Entry Worksheet 9
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 5/4/2023 Default
Grading/Excavation Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected)Equipment Tier Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Air Compressors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crawler Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Excavators 0.18 3.27 1.40 0.07 0.06 0.01 500.27 0.16 0.00 505.66 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Generator Sets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Graders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other General Industrial Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Material Handling Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pavers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pumps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rollers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Scrapers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Signal Boards 0.06 0.30 0.36 0.01 0.01 0.00 49.31 0.01 0.00 49.56 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.14 2.24 1.45 0.07 0.06 0.00 301.77 0.10 0.00 305.01 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Grading/Excavation pounds per day 0.38 5.80 3.21 0.15 0.14 0.01 851.35 0.26 0.01 860.24 Grading/Excavation tons per phase 0.01 0.17 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.28 0.01 0.00 25.55 N/A
N/A
Equipment Tier
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Number of Vehicles
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Mitigation Option
N/A
Data Entry Worksheet 10
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 5/4/2023 Default
Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected)Equipment Tier pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Air Compressors 0.24 2.41 1.63 0.08 0.08 0.00 375.26 0.02 0.00 376.63
1.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Bore/Drill Rigs 0.55 6.08 4.14 0.16 0.15 0.03 2,964.40 0.96 0.03 2,996.23
1.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.06 0.31 0.37 0.01 0.01 0.00 50.52 0.01 0.00 50.77 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crawler Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Excavators 0.18 3.27 1.40 0.07 0.06 0.01 500.27 0.16 0.00 505.66
1.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Forklifts 0.09 1.14 0.88 0.05 0.05 0.00 148.03 0.05 0.00 149.63
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Generator Sets 0.29 3.66 2.54 0.11 0.11 0.01 623.04 0.03 0.00 625.06 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Graders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other General Industrial Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Material Handling Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pavers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Plate Compactors 0.04 0.21 0.25 0.01 0.01 0.00 34.48 0.00 0.00 34.65 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pumps 0.31 3.72 2.58 0.12 0.12 0.01 623.04 0.03 0.00 625.12 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rollers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Loaders 0.25 1.50 2.33 0.08 0.07 0.01 605.51 0.20 0.01 612.05 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Scrapers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Signal Boards 0.06 0.30 0.36 0.01 0.01 0.00 49.31 0.01 0.00 49.56 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Welders 0.24 1.66 1.38 0.05 0.05 0.00 207.48 0.02 0.00 208.52 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade pounds per day 2.30 24.26 17.87 0.75 0.72 0.07 6,181.33 1.47 0.05 6,233.90 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade tons per phase 0.05 0.48 0.35 0.01 0.01 0.00 122.39 0.03 0.00 123.43 N/A
N/A
N/A
Equipment Tier
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Number of Vehicles
Mitigation Option
0.00 Data Entry Worksheet 11
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 5/4/2023 Default
Paving Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected)Equipment Tier Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Air Compressors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crawler Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Excavators 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Generator Sets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Graders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Trucks 0.50 3.25 3.33 0.12 0.11 0.01 1,280.35 0.41 0.01 1,294.14 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other General Industrial Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Material Handling Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pavers 0.18 2.89 1.74 0.08 0.07 0.00 455.16 0.15 0.00 460.07 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pumps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rollers 0.15 1.85 1.52 0.08 0.07 0.00 254.15 0.08 0.00 256.88 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Scrapers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Signal Boards 0.06 0.30 0.36 0.01 0.01 0.00 49.31 0.01 0.00 49.56 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paving pounds per day 0.88 8.29 6.95 0.30 0.27 0.02 2,038.97 0.65 0.02 2,060.65 Paving tons per phase 0.01 0.08 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.19 0.01 0.00 20.40 Total Emissions all Phases (tons per construction period) =>0.07 0.79 0.56 0.02 0.02 0.00 176.08 0.04 0.00 177.66 N/A
N/A
Equipment Tier
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.00 Number of Vehicles
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Mitigation Option
Data Entry Worksheet 12
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 5/4/2023 Road Construction Emissions Model Version 9.0.0
Data Entry Worksheet
Months
Optional data input sections have a blue background. Only areas with a Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.60 yellow or blue background can be modified. Program defaults have a white background. Grading/Excavation 2.70 The user is required to enter information in cells D10 through D24, E28 through G35, and D38 through D41 for all project types.Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 1.80 Please use "Clear Data Input & User Overrides" button first before changing the Project Type or begin a new project.Paving 0.90 Input Type
Project Name CCB Water Distribution Pipelines - Phase II - Mitigated Construction Start Year 2024 Enter a Year between 2014
and 2040 (inclusive)
Project Type 1) New Road Construction : Project to build a roadway from bare ground, which generally requires more site preparation than widening an existing roadway 2) Road Widening : Project to add a new lane to an existing roadway 3) Bridge/Overpass Construction : Project to build an elevated roadway, which generally requires some different equipment than a new roadway, such as a crane 4) Other Linear Project Type: Non-roadway project such as a pipeline, transmission line, or levee construction Project Construction Time 6.00 months
Working Days per Month 22.00 days (assume 22 if unknown) Predominant Soil/Site Type: Enter 1, 2, or 3 1) Sand Gravel : Use for quaternary deposits (Delta/West County) 2) Weathered Rock-Earth : Use for Laguna formation (Jackson Highway area) or the Ione formation (Scott Road, Rancho Murieta) 3) Blasted Rock : Use for Salt Springs Slate or Copper Hill Volcanics (Folsom South of Highway 50, Rancho Murieta) Project Length 0.17 miles
Total Project Area 0.06 acres
Maximum Area Disturbed/Day 0.04 acres
Water Trucks Used?1 1. Yes
2. No
Material Hauling Quantity Input
Material Type Phase Haul Truck Capacity (yd3) (assume 20 if unknown)Import Volume (yd3/day) Export Volume (yd
3/day)
Grubbing/Land Clearing 20.00
Grading/Excavation 20.00 15.25
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 20.00 14.83
Paving 20.00
Grubbing/Land Clearing 20.00 3.85
Grading/Excavation 20.00
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 20.00
Paving 20.00 2.53
Mitigation Options EF source
On-road Fleet Emissions Mitigation Select "2010 and Newer On-road Vehicles Fleet" option when the on-road heavy-duty truck fleet for the project will be limited to vehicles of model year 2010 or newer on-road EMFAC2017 Off-road Equipment Emissions Mitigation
Select "Tier 4 Equipment" option if some or all off-road equipment used for the project meets CARB Tier 4 Standard Will all off-road equipment be tier 4?
The remaining sections of this sheet contain areas that require modification when 'Other Project Type' is selected.
Note: The program's estimates of construction period phase length can be overridden in cells D50 through D53, and F50 through F53.
Program Program
User Override of Calculated User Override of Default Program Calculated Activity Fractions Construction Periods Construction Months Months Phase Starting Date Phase Starting Date start date end date Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.60 1/1/2024 1/1/2024 1/19/2024 Grading/Excavation 2.70 1/20/2024 1/20/2024 4/11/2024
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 1.80 4/12/2024 4/12/2024 6/5/2024 Paving 0.90 6/6/2024 6/6/2024 7/3/2024
Totals (Months)
Note: Soil Hauling emission default values can be overridden in cells D61 through D64, and F61 through F64.
Soil Hauling Emissions User Override of Program Estimate of User Override of Truck Default Values Calculated User Input Miles/Round Trip Miles/Round Trip Round Trips/Day Round Trips/Day Daily VMT Miles/round trip: Grubbing/Land Clearing 20.00 0.00 0 0.00 Miles/round trip: Grading/Excavation 20.00 0.00 1 20.00 Miles/round trip: Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 20.00 0.00 1 20.00 Miles/round trip: Paving 20.00 0.00 0 0.00
Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile)0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile)0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile)0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Paving (grams/mile)0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.00 75.14 0.00 0.01 78.66 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.23 0.00 0.00 2.34 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.00 75.14 0.00 0.01 78.66 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.49 0.00 0.00
1.56 Pounds per day - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 Total tons per construction project 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.72 0.00 0.00
3.89 Note: Asphalt Hauling emission default values can be overridden in cells D91 through D94, and F91 through F94.
Asphalt Hauling Emissions User Override of Program Estimate of User Override of Truck Default Values Calculated User Input Miles/Round Trip Miles/Round Trip Round Trips/Day Round Trips/Day Daily VMT Miles/round trip: Grubbing/Land Clearing 20.00 0.00 1 20.00 (for project within "Sacramento County", follow soil type selection instructions in cells E18 to E20 otherwise see instructions provided in cells J18 to J22)
2 Soil
Asphalt
Tier 4 Equipment
All Tier 4 Equipment
For 4: Other Linear Project Type, please provide project specific off- road equipment population and vehicle trip data
Please note that the soil type instructions provided in cells E18 to E20 are specific to Sacramento County. Maps available from the California Geologic Survey (see weblink below) can be used to determine soil type outside Sacramento County.
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/information/geologic_mapping/Pa ges/googlemaps.aspx#regionalseries
4 Note: Required data input sections have a yellow background.
No Mitigation
6 Select "20% NOx and 45% Exhaust PM reduction" option if the project will be required to use a lower emitting off-road construction fleet. The SMAQMD Construction Mitigation Calculator can be used to confirm compliance with this mitigation measure ( http://www.airquality.org/Businesses/CEQA-Land-Use-Planning/Mitigation) .
To begin a new project, click this button to
clear data previously entered. This button
will only work if you opted not to disable
macros when loading this spreadsheet.
Data Entry Worksheet 6
SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN
AIR QUALITY
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
[I J
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 5/4/2023 Miles/round trip: Grading/Excavation 20.00 0.00 0 0.00
Miles/round trip: Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 20.00 0.00 0 0.00 Miles/round trip: Paving 20.00 0.00 1 20.00
Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile)0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile)0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile)0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Paving (grams/mile)0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.00 75.14 0.00 0.01 78.66 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.52 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Paving 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.00 75.14 0.00 0.01 78.66 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.78 Total tons per construction project 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.24 0.00 0.00 1.30 Data Entry Worksheet 7
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 5/4/2023 Note: Worker commute default values can be overridden in cells D121 through D126.
Worker Commute Emissions User Override of Worker
User Input Commute Default Values Default Values
Miles/ one-way trip 13 0 Calculated Calculated
One-way trips/day 2 0 Daily Trips Daily VMT
No. of employees: Grubbing/Land Clearing 20 0 40 520.00 No. of employees: Grading/Excavation 20 0 40 520.00
No. of employees: Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 20 0 40 520.00 No. of employees: Paving 20 0 40 520.00
Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile)0.01 0.84 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.00 306.70 0.00 0.01 308.54 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile)0.01 0.84 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.00 306.70 0.00 0.01 308.54 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile)0.01 0.84 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.00 306.70 0.00 0.01 308.54 Paving (grams/mile)0.01 0.84 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.00 306.70 0.00 0.01 308.54 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip)0.98 2.66 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 65.99 0.07 0.03 76.61 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip)0.98 2.66 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 65.99 0.07 0.03 76.61 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip)0.98 2.66 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 65.99 0.07 0.03 76.61 Paving (grams/trip)0.98 2.66 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 65.99 0.07 0.03 76.61 Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.10 1.20 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.00 357.42 0.01 0.01 360.47 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.36 0.00 0.00 2.38 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.10 1.20 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.00 357.42 0.01 0.01 360.47 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.62 0.00 0.00 10.71 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.10 1.20 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.00 357.42 0.01 0.01 360.47 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.08 0.00 0.00 7.14 Pounds per day - Paving 0.10 1.20 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.00 357.42 0.01 0.01 360.47 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.54 0.00 0.00 3.57 Total tons per construction project 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.59 0.00 0.00 23.79 Note: Water Truck default values can be overridden in cells D153 through D156, I153 through I156, and F153 through F156.
Water Truck Emissions User Override of Program Estimate of User Override of Truck Default Values Calculated User Override of Default Values Calculated User Input Default # Water Trucks Number of Water Trucks Round Trips/Vehicle/Day Round Trips/Vehicle/Day Trips/day Miles/Round Trip Miles/Round Trip Daily VMT Grubbing/Land Clearing - Exhaust 1 0 1.00 0 1 20.00 0.00 20.00 Grading/Excavation - Exhaust 1 0 1.00 0 1 20.00 0.00 20.00 Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade 1 0 1.00 0 1 20.00 0.00 20.00 Paving 1 0 1.00 0 1 20.00 0.00 20.00
Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile)0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile)0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile)0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Paving (grams/mile)0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.00 75.14 0.00 0.01 78.66 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.52 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.00 75.14 0.00 0.01 78.66 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.23 0.00 0.00 2.34 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.00 75.14 0.00 0.01 78.66 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.49 0.00 0.00 1.56 Pounds per day - Paving 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.00 75.14 0.00 0.01 78.66 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.78 Total tons per construction project 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.96 0.00 0.00 5.19 Note: Fugitive dust default values can be overridden in cells D183 through D185.
User Override of Max Default PM10 PM10 PM2.5 PM2.5
Acreage Disturbed/Day Maximum Acreage/Day pounds/day tons/per period pounds/day tons/per period Fugitive Dust - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.04 0.40 0.00 0.08 0.00 Fugitive Dust - Grading/Excavation 0.04 0.40 0.01 0.08 0.00 Fugitive Dust - Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade 0.04 0.40 0.01 0.08 0.00 Fugitive Dust
Data Entry Worksheet 8
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 5/4/2023 Values in cells D195 through D228, D246 through D279, D297 through D330, and D348 through D381 are required when 'Other Project Type' is selected.
Off-Road Equipment Emissions
Default
Grubbing/Land Clearing Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected)Equipment Tier Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Tier 4 Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Air Compressors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.16 3.86 0.31 0.02 0.01 0.01 592.67 0.03 0.00 594.70 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Crawler Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Excavators 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Generator Sets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Graders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Other General Industrial Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Other Material Handling Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Pavers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Pumps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Rollers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Rubber Tired Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Scrapers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Signal Boards 0.03 0.52 0.46 0.03 0.02 0.00 49.31 0.01 0.00 49.56 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.19 4.68 0.38 0.02 0.02 0.01 603.53 0.20 0.01 610.03 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Grubbing/Land Clearing pounds per day 0.37 9.06 1.15 0.06 0.06 0.01 1,245.51 0.23 0.01 1,254.29 Grubbing/Land Clearing tons per phase 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.22 0.00 0.00 8.28 N/A
N/A
N/A
Equipment Tier
0.00 Number of Vehicles
0.00 0.00 N/A
Mitigation Option
0.00 0.00
N/A
0.00 0.00
N/A
N/A
Data Entry Worksheet 9
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 5/4/2023 Default
Grading/Excavation Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected)Equipment Tier Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Tier 4 Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Air Compressors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Crawler Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Excavators 0.16 3.92 0.32 0.02 0.01 0.01 500.27 0.16 0.00 505.66 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Generator Sets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Graders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Other General Industrial Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Other Material Handling Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Pavers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Pumps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Rollers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Rubber Tired Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Scrapers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Signal Boards 0.03 0.52 0.46 0.03 0.02 0.00 49.31 0.01 0.00 49.56 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.09 2.34 0.19 0.01 0.01 0.00 301.77 0.10 0.00 305.01 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Grading/Excavation pounds per day 0.28 6.78 0.97 0.05 0.05 0.01 851.35 0.26 0.01 860.24 Grading/Excavation tons per phase 0.01 0.20 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.28 0.01 0.00 25.55 N/A
N/A
Equipment Tier
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Number of Vehicles
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Mitigation Option
N/A
Data Entry Worksheet 10
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 5/4/2023 Default
Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected)Equipment Tier pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Tier 4 Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Air Compressors 0.10 2.44 0.20 0.01 0.01 0.00 375.26 0.02 0.00 376.63
1.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Bore/Drill Rigs 0.92 16.05 1.85 0.09 0.09 0.03 2,964.40 0.96 0.03 2,996.23
1.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.03 0.53 0.47 0.03 0.02 0.00 50.52 0.01 0.00 50.77 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Crawler Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Excavators 0.16 3.92 0.32 0.02 0.01 0.01 500.27 0.16 0.00 505.66
1.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Forklifts 0.05 1.16 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 148.03 0.05 0.00 149.63
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Generator Sets 0.16 4.06 0.33 0.02 0.02 0.01 623.04 0.03 0.00 625.06 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Graders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Other General Industrial Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Other Material Handling Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Pavers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Plate Compactors 0.02 0.36 0.32 0.02 0.02 0.00 34.48 0.00 0.00 34.65 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Pumps 0.16 4.06 0.33 0.02 0.02 0.01 623.04 0.03 0.00 625.12 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Rollers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Rubber Tired Loaders 0.19 3.35 0.39 0.02 0.02 0.01 605.51 0.20 0.01 612.05 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Scrapers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Signal Boards 0.03 0.52 0.46 0.03 0.02 0.00 49.31 0.01 0.00 49.56 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Welders 0.07 1.50 1.21 0.01 0.01 0.00 207.48 0.02 0.00 208.52 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade pounds per day 1.89 37.95 5.98 0.25 0.23 0.07 6,181.33 1.47 0.05 6,233.90 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade tons per phase 0.04 0.75 0.12 0.01 0.00 0.00 122.39 0.03 0.00 123.43 N/A
N/A
N/A
Equipment Tier
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Number of Vehicles
Mitigation Option
0.00 Data Entry Worksheet 11
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 5/4/2023 Default
Paving Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected)Equipment Tier Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Tier 4 Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Air Compressors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Crawler Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Excavators 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Generator Sets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Graders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Off-Highway Trucks 0.40 7.00 0.81 0.04 0.04 0.01 1,280.35 0.41 0.01 1,294.14 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Other General Industrial Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Other Material Handling Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Pavers 0.14 3.56 0.29 0.01 0.01 0.00 455.16 0.15 0.00 460.07 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Pumps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Rollers 0.08 1.98 0.16 0.01 0.01 0.00 254.15 0.08 0.00 256.88 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Rubber Tired Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Scrapers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Signal Boards 0.03 0.52 0.46 0.03 0.02 0.00 49.31 0.01 0.00 49.56 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paving pounds per day 0.65 13.07 1.72 0.09 0.08 0.02 2,038.97 0.65 0.02 2,060.65 Paving tons per phase 0.01 0.13 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.19 0.01 0.00 20.40 Total Emissions all Phases (tons per construction period) =>0.05 1.14 0.17 0.01 0.01 0.00 176.08 0.04 0.00 177.66 N/A
N/A
Equipment Tier
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.00 Number of Vehicles
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Mitigation Option
Data Entry Worksheet 12
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 5/4/2023 Road Construction Emissions Model Version 9.0.0
Data Entry Worksheet
Months
Optional data input sections have a blue background. Only areas with a Grubbing/Land Clearing 1.20 yellow or blue background can be modified. Program defaults have a white background. Grading/Excavation 5.40 The user is required to enter information in cells D10 through D24, E28 through G35, and D38 through D41 for all project types.Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 3.60 Please use "Clear Data Input & User Overrides" button first before changing the Project Type or begin a new project.Paving 1.80 Input Type
Project Name CCB Agricultural Irrigation Pipelines - Mitigated Construction Start Year 2021 Enter a Year between 2014
and 2040 (inclusive)
Project Type 1) New Road Construction : Project to build a roadway from bare ground, which generally requires more site preparation than widening an existing roadway 2) Road Widening : Project to add a new lane to an existing roadway 3) Bridge/Overpass Construction : Project to build an elevated roadway, which generally requires some different equipment than a new roadway, such as a crane 4) Other Linear Project Type: Non-roadway project such as a pipeline, transmission line, or levee construction Project Construction Time 12.00 months
Working Days per Month 22.00 days (assume 22 if unknown) Predominant Soil/Site Type: Enter 1, 2, or 3 1) Sand Gravel : Use for quaternary deposits (Delta/West County) 2) Weathered Rock-Earth : Use for Laguna formation (Jackson Highway area) or the Ione formation (Scott Road, Rancho Murieta) 3) Blasted Rock : Use for Salt Springs Slate or Copper Hill Volcanics (Folsom South of Highway 50, Rancho Murieta) Project Length 7.60 miles
Total Project Area 2.80 acres
Maximum Area Disturbed/Day 0.04 acres
Water Trucks Used?1 1. Yes
2. No
Material Hauling Quantity Input
Material Type Phase Haul Truck Capacity (yd3) (assume 20 if unknown)Import Volume (yd3/day) Export Volume (yd
3/day)
Grubbing/Land Clearing 20.00
Grading/Excavation 20.00 336.70
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 20.00 222.00
Paving 20.00
Grubbing/Land Clearing 20.00 84.17
Grading/Excavation 20.00
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 20.00
Paving 20.00 56.11
Mitigation Options EF source
On-road Fleet Emissions Mitigation Select "2010 and Newer On-road Vehicles Fleet" option when the on-road heavy-duty truck fleet for the project will be limited to vehicles of model year 2010 or newer on-road EMFAC2017 Off-road Equipment Emissions Mitigation
Select "Tier 4 Equipment" option if some or all off-road equipment used for the project meets CARB Tier 4 Standard Will all off-road equipment be tier 4?
The remaining sections of this sheet contain areas that require modification when 'Other Project Type' is selected.
Note: The program's estimates of construction period phase length can be overridden in cells D50 through D53, and F50 through F53.
Program Program
User Override of Calculated User Override of Default Program Calculated Activity Fractions Construction Periods Construction Months Months Phase Starting Date Phase Starting Date start date end date Grubbing/Land Clearing 1.20 1/1/2021 1/1/2021 2/6/2021
Grading/Excavation 5.40 2/7/2021 2/7/2021 7/21/2021
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 3.60 7/22/2021 7/22/2021 11/8/2021 Paving 1.80 11/9/2021 11/9/2021 1/2/2022
Totals (Months)
Note: Soil Hauling emission default values can be overridden in cells D61 through D64, and F61 through F64.
Soil Hauling Emissions User Override of Program Estimate of User Override of Truck Default Values Calculated User Input Miles/Round Trip Miles/Round Trip Round Trips/Day Round Trips/Day Daily VMT Miles/round trip: Grubbing/Land Clearing 20.00 0.00 0 0.00 Miles/round trip: Grading/Excavation 20.00 0.00 17 340.00 Miles/round trip: Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 20.00 0.00 12 240.00 Miles/round trip: Paving 20.00 0.00 0 0.00
Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile)0.43 1.14 6.49 0.21 0.15 0.02 1,859.78 0.02 0.29 1,947.39 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile)0.43 1.14 6.49 0.21 0.15 0.02 1,859.78 0.02 0.29 1,947.39 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile)0.43 1.14 6.49 0.21 0.15 0.02 1,859.78 0.02 0.29 1,947.39 Paving (grams/mile)0.41 1.11 6.40 0.21 0.14 0.02 1,856.47 0.02 0.29 1,943.91 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 3.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 3.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 3.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 3.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.32 0.85 5.00 0.16 0.11 0.01 1,394.04 0.01 0.22 1,459.71 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.02 0.05 0.30 0.01 0.01 0.00 82.81 0.00 0.01 86.71 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.23 0.60 3.53 0.11 0.08 0.01 984.03 0.01 0.15 1,030.38 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.01 0.02 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.97 0.00 0.01
40.80 Pounds per day - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 Total tons per construction project 0.03 0.07 0.44 0.01 0.01 0.00 121.77 0.00 0.02 127.51
Note: Asphalt Hauling emission default values can be overridden in cells D91 through D94, and F91 through F94.
Asphalt Hauling Emissions User Override of Program Estimate of User Override of Truck Default Values Calculated User Input Miles/Round Trip Miles/Round Trip Round Trips/Day Round Trips/Day Daily VMT Miles/round trip: Grubbing/Land Clearing 20.00 0.00 5 100.00 (for project within "Sacramento County", follow soil type selection instructions in cells E18 to E20 otherwise see instructions provided in cells J18 to J22)
2 Soil
Asphalt
Tier 4 Equipment
All Tier 4 Equipment
For 4: Other Linear Project Type, please provide project specific off- road equipment population and vehicle trip data
Please note that the soil type instructions provided in cells E18 to E20 are specific to Sacramento County. Maps available from the California Geologic Survey (see weblink below) can be used to determine soil type outside Sacramento County.
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/information/geologic_mapping/Pa ges/googlemaps.aspx#regionalseries
4 Note: Required data input sections have a yellow background.
No Mitigation
12 Select "20% NOx and 45% Exhaust PM reduction" option if the project will be required to use a lower emitting off-road construction fleet. The SMAQMD Construction Mitigation Calculator can be used to confirm compliance with this mitigation measure ( http://www.airquality.org/Businesses/CEQA-Land-Use-Planning/Mitigation) .
To begin a new project, click this button to
clear data previously entered. This button
will only work if you opted not to disable
macros when loading this spreadsheet.
Data Entry Worksheet 6
SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN
AIR QUALITY
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
[I J
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 5/4/2023 Miles/round trip: Grading/Excavation 20.00 0.00 0 0.00
Miles/round trip: Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 20.00 0.00 0 0.00 Miles/round trip: Paving 20.00 0.00 3 60.00
Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile)0.43 1.14 6.49 0.21 0.15 0.02 1,859.78 0.02 0.29 1,947.39 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile)0.43 1.14 6.49 0.21 0.15 0.02 1,859.78 0.02 0.29 1,947.39 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile)0.43 1.14 6.49 0.21 0.15 0.02 1,859.78 0.02 0.29 1,947.39 Paving (grams/mile)0.41 1.11 6.40 0.21 0.14 0.02 1,856.47 0.02 0.29 1,943.91 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 3.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 3.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 3.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 3.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.09 0.25 1.47 0.05 0.03 0.00 410.01 0.00 0.06 429.33 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.41 0.00 0.00 5.67 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Paving 0.05 0.15 0.87 0.03 0.02 0.00 245.57 0.00 0.04 257.14 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.86 0.00 0.00 5.09 Total tons per construction project 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.27 0.00 0.00 10.76 Data Entry Worksheet 7
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 5/4/2023 Note: Worker commute default values can be overridden in cells D121 through D126.
Worker Commute Emissions User Override of Worker
User Input Commute Default Values Default Values
Miles/ one-way trip 13 0 Calculated Calculated
One-way trips/day 2 0 Daily Trips Daily VMT
No. of employees: Grubbing/Land Clearing 20 0 40 520.00 No. of employees: Grading/Excavation 20 0 40 520.00
No. of employees: Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 20 0 40 520.00 No. of employees: Paving 20 0 40 520.00
Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile)0.02 1.10 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.00 339.80 0.00 0.01 342.28 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile)0.02 1.10 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.00 339.80 0.00 0.01 342.28 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile)0.02 1.10 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.00 339.80 0.00 0.01 342.28 Paving (grams/mile)0.02 1.10 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.00 339.24 0.00 0.01 341.71 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip)1.18 2.95 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 72.81 0.08 0.04 85.39 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip)1.18 2.95 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 72.81 0.08 0.04 85.39 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip)1.18 2.95 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 72.81 0.08 0.04 85.39 Paving (grams/trip)1.17 2.94 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 72.70 0.08 0.04 85.24 Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.13 1.52 0.14 0.05 0.02 0.00 395.97 0.01 0.01 399.92 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.23 0.00 0.00 5.28 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.13 1.52 0.14 0.05 0.02 0.00 395.97 0.01 0.01 399.92 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.52 0.00 0.00 23.76 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.13 1.52 0.14 0.05 0.02 0.00 395.97 0.01 0.01 399.92 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.68 0.00 0.00 15.84 Pounds per day - Paving 0.13 1.52 0.14 0.05 0.02 0.00 395.32 0.01 0.01 399.26 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.83 0.00 0.00 7.91 Total tons per construction project 0.02 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 52.25 0.00 0.00 52.78 Note: Water Truck default values can be overridden in cells D153 through D156, I153 through I156, and F153 through F156.
Water Truck Emissions User Override of Program Estimate of User Override of Truck Default Values Calculated User Override of Default Values Calculated User Input Default # Water Trucks Number of Water Trucks Round Trips/Vehicle/Day Round Trips/Vehicle/Day Trips/day Miles/Round Trip Miles/Round Trip Daily VMT Grubbing/Land Clearing - Exhaust 1 0 1.00 0 1 20.00 0.00 20.00 Grading/Excavation - Exhaust 1 0 1.00 0 1 20.00 0.00 20.00 Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade 1 0 1.00 0 1 20.00 0.00 20.00 Paving 1 0 1.00 0 1 20.00 0.00 20.00
Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile)0.43 1.14 6.49 0.21 0.15 0.02 1,859.78 0.02 0.29 1,947.39 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile)0.43 1.14 6.49 0.21 0.15 0.02 1,859.78 0.02 0.29 1,947.39 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile)0.43 1.14 6.49 0.21 0.15 0.02 1,859.78 0.02 0.29 1,947.39 Paving (grams/mile)0.41 1.11 6.40 0.21 0.14 0.02 1,856.47 0.02 0.29 1,943.91 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 3.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 3.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 3.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 3.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.02 0.05 0.29 0.01 0.01 0.00 82.00 0.00 0.01 85.87 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.08 0.00 0.00 1.13 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.02 0.05 0.29 0.01 0.01 0.00 82.00 0.00 0.01 85.87 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.87 0.00 0.00 5.10 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.02 0.05 0.29 0.01 0.01 0.00 82.00 0.00 0.01 85.87 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.25 0.00 0.00 3.40 Pounds per day - Paving 0.02 0.05 0.29 0.01 0.01 0.00 81.86 0.00 0.01 85.71 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.62 0.00 0.00 1.70 Total tons per construction project 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.82 0.00 0.00 11.33 Note: Fugitive dust default values can be overridden in cells D183 through D185.
User Override of Max Default PM10 PM10 PM2.5 PM2.5
Acreage Disturbed/Day Maximum Acreage/Day pounds/day tons/per period pounds/day tons/per period Fugitive Dust - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.04 0.40 0.01 0.08 0.00 Fugitive Dust - Grading/Excavation 0.04 0.40 0.02 0.08 0.00 Fugitive Dust - Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade 0.04 0.40 0.02 0.08 0.00 Fugitive Dust
Data Entry Worksheet 8
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 5/4/2023 Values in cells D195 through D228, D246 through D279, D297 through D330, and D348 through D381 are required when 'Other Project Type' is selected.
Off-Road Equipment Emissions
Default
Grubbing/Land Clearing Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected)Equipment Tier Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Tier 4 Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Air Compressors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.16 3.86 0.31 0.02 0.01 0.01 592.67 0.03 0.00 594.85 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Crawler Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Excavators 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Generator Sets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Graders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Other General Industrial Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Other Material Handling Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Pavers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Pumps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Rollers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Rubber Tired Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Scrapers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Signal Boards 0.03 0.52 0.46 0.03 0.02 0.00 49.31 0.01 0.00 49.56 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.19 4.68 0.38 0.02 0.02 0.01 601.80 0.19 0.01 608.28 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Grubbing/Land Clearing pounds per day 0.37 9.06 1.15 0.06 0.06 0.01 1,243.78 0.23 0.01 1,252.70 Grubbing/Land Clearing tons per phase 0.00 0.12 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.42 0.00 0.00 16.54 N/A
N/A
N/A
Equipment Tier
0.00 Number of Vehicles
0.00 0.00 N/A
Mitigation Option
0.00 0.00
N/A
0.00 0.00
N/A
N/A
Data Entry Worksheet 9
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 5/4/2023 Default
Grading/Excavation Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected)Equipment Tier Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Tier 4 Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Air Compressors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Crawler Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Excavators 0.16 3.92 0.32 0.02 0.01 0.01 500.19 0.16 0.00 505.59 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Generator Sets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Graders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Other General Industrial Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Other Material Handling Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Pavers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Pumps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Rollers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Rubber Tired Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Scrapers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Signal Boards 0.03 0.52 0.46 0.03 0.02 0.00 49.31 0.01 0.00 49.56 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.09 2.34 0.19 0.01 0.01 0.00 300.90 0.10 0.00 304.14 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Grading/Excavation pounds per day 0.28 6.78 0.97 0.05 0.05 0.01 850.41 0.26 0.01 859.29 Grading/Excavation tons per phase 0.02 0.40 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.51 0.02 0.00 51.04 N/A
N/A
Equipment Tier
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Number of Vehicles
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Mitigation Option
N/A
Data Entry Worksheet 10
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 5/4/2023 Default
Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected)Equipment Tier pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Tier 4 Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Air Compressors 0.10 2.44 0.20 0.01 0.01 0.00 375.26 0.03 0.00 376.75
1.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Bore/Drill Rigs 0.92 16.05 1.85 0.09 0.09 0.03 2,926.47 0.95 0.03 2,957.99
1.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.03 0.53 0.47 0.03 0.02 0.00 50.52 0.01 0.00 50.77 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Crawler Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Excavators 0.16 3.92 0.32 0.02 0.01 0.01 500.19 0.16 0.00 505.59
1.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Forklifts 0.05 1.16 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 148.03 0.05 0.00 149.63
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Generator Sets 0.16 4.06 0.33 0.02 0.02 0.01 623.04 0.03 0.00 625.23 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Graders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Other General Industrial Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Other Material Handling Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Pavers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Plate Compactors 0.02 0.36 0.32 0.02 0.02 0.00 34.48 0.00 0.00 34.65 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Pumps 0.16 4.06 0.33 0.02 0.02 0.01 623.04 0.03 0.00 625.28 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Rollers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Rubber Tired Loaders 0.19 3.35 0.39 0.02 0.02 0.01 605.23 0.20 0.01 611.76 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Scrapers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Signal Boards 0.03 0.52 0.46 0.03 0.02 0.00 49.31 0.01 0.00 49.56 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Welders 0.07 1.50 1.21 0.01 0.01 0.00 207.48 0.03 0.00 208.67 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade pounds per day 1.89 37.95 5.98 0.25 0.23 0.06 6,143.04 1.48 0.05 6,195.88 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade tons per phase 0.07 1.50 0.24 0.01 0.01 0.00 243.26 0.06 0.00 245.36 N/A
N/A
N/A
Equipment Tier
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Number of Vehicles
Mitigation Option
0.00 Data Entry Worksheet 11
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 5/4/2023 Default
Paving Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected)Equipment Tier Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Tier 4 Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Air Compressors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Crawler Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Excavators 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Generator Sets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Graders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Off-Highway Trucks 0.40 7.00 0.81 0.04 0.04 0.01 1,278.55 0.41 0.01 1,292.32 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Other General Industrial Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Other Material Handling Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Pavers 0.14 3.56 0.29 0.01 0.01 0.00 455.07 0.15 0.00 459.98 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Pumps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Rollers 0.08 1.98 0.16 0.01 0.01 0.00 254.09 0.08 0.00 256.83 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Rubber Tired Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Scrapers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Signal Boards 0.03 0.52 0.46 0.03 0.02 0.00 49.31 0.01 0.00 49.56 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Tier 4 Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paving pounds per day 0.65 13.07 1.72 0.09 0.08 0.02 2,037.02 0.65 0.02 2,058.69 Paving tons per phase 0.01 0.26 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.33 0.01 0.00 40.76 Total Emissions all Phases (tons per construction period) =>0.11 2.28 0.34 0.02 0.01 0.00 350.53 0.09 0.00 353.70 N/A
N/A
Equipment Tier
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.00 Number of Vehicles
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Mitigation Option
Data Entry Worksheet 12
HP: 0 to 100 0.0588 0.0529
Construction Equipment #
Hours per
Day Horsepower
Load
Factor Construction Phase
Fuel Used
(gallons)
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 84 0.37 Site Preparation 73.06 Excavator 1 8 36 0.38 Sewer Connection 32.16 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 84 0.37 Sewer Connection 73.06 Air Compressors 1 24 37 0.48 Critical Drilling 100.19 Bore/Drill Rigs 1 24 83 0.50 Critical Drilling 234.12 Forklifts 1 6 82 0.20 Critical Drilling 23.13 Generator Sets 2 24 14 0.74 Critical Drilling 116.89 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6 84 0.37 Critical Drilling 43.83 Air Compressors 1 8 37 0.48 Groundwater Well Installation 851.62 Bore/Drill Rigs 1 8 83 0.50 Groundwater Well Installation 1,989.99 Forklifts 1 6 82 0.20 Groundwater Well Installation 589.80 Generator Sets 2 8 14 0.74 Groundwater Well Installation 993.56 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 84 0.37 Groundwater Well Installation 1,490.34 Forklifts 1 6 82 0.20 Site Restoration 80.95 Generator Sets 2 8 14 0.74 Site Restoration 136.37 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 84 0.37 Site Restoration 204.56 Total Fuel Used 7,033.62
(Gallons)
Site Preparation
Sewer Connection
Critical Drilling
Groundwater Well Installation
Site Restoration
Total Days
MPG [2] Trips
Fuel Used
(gallons)
24.0 20 33.75
24.0 20 33.75
24.0 20 27.00
24.0 20 688.50
24.0 20 94.50
Fuel 877.50
MPG [2] Trips
Fuel Used
(gallons)
7.4 2 9.32
7.4 2 9.32
7.4 2 324.32
7.4 2 190.22
7.4 2 26.11
Fuel 559.30
7.4 2500 337.84
7.4 10 27.03
Fuel 364.86
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Central Coast Blue - I&P Well Construction - Modified Project Last Updated: April 27, 2023
Compression-Ignition Engine Brake-Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) Factors [1]:
HP: Greater than 100
Values above are expressed in gallons per horsepower-hour/BSFC.
Site Preparation 8.1
Construction Phase Days of Operation
5 5
4 102
14 130
WORKER TRIPS
Constuction Phase Trip Length (miles)
VENDOR TRIPS
Sewer Connection 8.1
Critical Drilling 8.1
Groundwater Well Installation 8.1
Site Restoration 8.1
HAULING AND VENDOR TRIPS
Trip Class Trip Length (miles)
Site Preparation 6.9
Sewer Connection 6.9
Critical Drilling 300.0
Groundwater Well Installation 6.9
Site Restoration 6.9
HAULING TRIPS
Critical Drilling and Well Installation -
Groundwater 1.0
Critical Drilling and Well Installation - Soil 20.0
1 4/27/2023 12:57 PM
One Well 7 Wells
877.50 6,142.50
7,957.78 55,704.45
Total Gasoline Consumption (gallons)
Total Diesel Consumption (gallons)
Sources:
[1] United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2018. Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Compression-Ignition Engines in MOVES2014b . July 2018. Available at: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100UXEN.pdf . [2] United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2018. National Transportation Statistics 2018 .
Available at: https://www.bts.gov/sites/bts.dot.gov/files/docs/browse-statistical-products-and-data/national-transportation- statistics/223001/ntsentire2018q4.pdf.
2 4/27/2023 12:57 PM
HP: 0 to 100 0.0588 0.0529
Construction Equipment #
Hours per
Day Horsepower
Load
Factor Construction Phase
Fuel Used
(gallons)
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 84 0.37 Site Preparation 73.06 Air Compressors 1 24 37 0.48 Critical Drilling 50.10 Bore/Drill Rigs 1 24 83 0.50 Critical Drilling 117.06 Forklifts 1 6 82 0.20 Critical Drilling 11.56 Generator Sets 2 24 14 0.74 Critical Drilling 58.44 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6 84 0.37 Critical Drilling 21.92 Air Compressors 1 8 37 0.48 Well Installation 108.54 Bore/Drill Rigs 1 8 83 0.50 Well Installation 253.63 Forklifts 1 6 82 0.20 Well Installation 75.17 Generator Sets 2 8 14 0.74 Well Installation 126.63 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 84 0.37 Well Installation 189.94 Forklifts 1 6 82 0.20 Site Restoration 80.95 Generator Sets 2 8 14 0.74 Site Restoration 136.37 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 84 0.37 Site Restoration 204.56 Total Fuel Used 1,507.93
(Gallons)
Site Preparation
Critical Drilling
Well Installation
Site Restoration
Total Days
MPG [2] Trips
Fuel Used
(gallons)