air quality conformity analysis - pomona · 2012. 12. 19. · air quality conformity analysis state...

Air Quality Conformity Analysis

State Route 71

Conversion to Freeway with HOV Lanes

City of Pomona in Los Angeles County

DISTRICT 07 – LA-71 Post Mile 0.5/4.8

Project ID 0700020800 - EA No. 21060

TIP ID No. LA0B951

November 2012

Prepared By: ___________________________________ Date: ______________________

s129668

Typewritten Text

Andrew Yoon, P.E. Caltrans - District 7

TableofContents

Section 1. Introduction and Project Description .............................................................. 1

1.1 Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Air Quality Regulatory Framework ................................................................................................ 5

Section 2. Regional Conformity ...................................................................................... 5

Section 3. Project-Level Conformity ............................................................................... 6

3.1 Carbon Monoxide Hot-Spot Analysis ............................................................................................ 6

3.2 PM2.5/PM10 Hot-Spot Analysis ....................................................................................................... 6

3.3 Construction-Related Hot-Spot Emissions .................................................................................... 7

ListofTable

Table 1 Project Area Attainment ................................................................................ 5 ListofFigures

Figure 1 Regional Project Vicinity Map…………... .......................................................... 2 Figure 2 Project Location Map ........................................................................................ 3 Figure 3 Intersections within Project Area ...................................................................... 4

ListofAppendices

Appendix A. Additional Documentation Related to Regional Conformity

Appendix B. Carbon Monoxide Hot-Spot Analysis Modeling Procedures

Appendix C. PM Interagency Consultation

Appendix D. PM Hot-Spot Analysis

SR-71 Conversion to Freeway with HOV Lanes November 2012Air Quality Conformity Analysis

1

Section 1. Introduction and Project Description

This Air Quality Conformity Analysis contains the information that is required by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to make an air quality conformity determination for the State Route 71 (SR-71) Conversion to Freeway with High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes (Project) pursuant to Section 6005 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). This analysis has been prepared to be consistent with FHWA’s June 21, 2007 guidance on Project-Level Conformity Determinations and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Assumption and Conformity Analysis Documentation checklist.

1.1 Project Description

SR-71 is a major regional highway transportation facility traversing parts of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside County. It is a connecting link for major east-west corridors passing through the area and serves as an inland passageway for interregional travel between San Diego and the eastern portion of the Los Angeles area. The route also serves heavy commute traffic originating in the communities of Chino, Ontario, and Pomona that is destined for employment centers in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. The purpose of this project is to alleviate traffic congestion by increasing capacity on SR-71 from I-10 to SR-60 to handle the forecasted traffic volumes in coming years due to extensive development in the region.

SR-71 is currently configured as a two-lane expressway throughout most of the project limits. SR-71 has a federal functional classification of P1M (Urban-Extension of Rural Principal Arterial into Urban Areas). SR-71 is included in the Federal Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) national network for oversized trucks within the project limits. SR-71 is not included in the Department of Defense California Priority Network; and is not part of the Interregional Road System (IRRS).

SR-71 experiences congestion while carrying substantial traffic volumes through the study area during peak hours. Travel demands and urban growth projections indicate that unacceptable levels of service will extend for longer periods of time over larger sections during peak periods unless improvements are made.

There is a need to eliminate signalized at-grade intersections to reduce accidents and improve safety by implementing the current Caltrans design standards. The following list is a summary of problems related to the SR-71:

Congestion, existing and future; Growth and the need for carpool incentives; Local circulation problems; Accidents; Rural designs in urban areas; and Missing gap in freeway HOV system.

SR-71 Conversion to Freeway with HOV Lanes November 2012 Air Quality Conformity Analysis

2

Figure 1. Regional Vicinity Map


3

Figure 2. Project Location Map


4

Figure 3. Intersections within Project Area

No-Build

The No-Build Alternative proposes that no action would be taken to construct any upgrades along SR-71 from I-10 to SR-60. As a result, the operational and safety characteristics of the roadway would remain the same and not be consistent with the local and regional transportation planning.

Build Alternative

This Alternative proposes to widen SR-71 to a standard 8-lane freeway including three (3) mixed flow lanes and one (1) HOV lane in each direction from I-10 to SR-60. The freeway profile will be at-grade with an overcrossing proposed at Old Pomona Road, which connects to West Lexington Avenue. A pedestrian overcrossing near 9th Street and a frontage road on the west side of the freeway between Philips Drive and Old Pomona Road are also proposed.

Figure 3 illustrates the study area which was chosen widely enough to capture the changes in traffic circulation caused by the Build Alternative.

The proposed project is currently in environmental re-evaluation with target dates to commence construction in April 2025; and to complete construction by April 2029.


5

1.2 Air Quality Regulatory Framework

Table 1 shows that the proposed project is located in an area that is nonattainment of the federal standards for ozone, inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb); and is maintenance of the standards for carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). This analysis focuses on these criteria pollutant(s).

Table 1. Project Area Attainment Status

Criteria Pollutant Federal Attainment Status

Ozone (O3) Nonattainment (Extreme)

PM2.5 Nonattainment

PM10 Nonattainment (Serious)

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment/Maintenance

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Attainment/Maintenance

Lead (Pb) Nonattainment

The project is located in Los Angeles County. The attainment status identified in Table 1 applies to the entire SCAB region that includes Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties.

Section 2. Regional Conformity

The SR-71/Expressway to Freeway Conversion with HOV Lanes project is identified as Project ID #LA0B951 and was included in the regional emissions analysis conducted by the South Coast Association of Governments (SCAG) for the conforming 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The project’s design concept and scope have not changed significantly from what was analyzed in the 2012 RTP. This analysis found that the plan and, therefore, the individual projects contained in the plan, are conforming projects and will have air quality impacts consistent with those identified in the state implementation plans (SIPs) for achieving the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). FHWA determined the RTP to conform to the SIP on June 4, 2012. Additional documentation related to the regional emissions analysis is contained in Appendix A.

The proposed project is also included in the 2011 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) and its Amendment No. 11-29. The proposed project is identified as a Transportation Control Measure (TCM) and its timely implementation is a crucial element in reducing air pollutant emissions from roadway transportation sources. FHWA determined the FTIP and its Amendment No. 11-29 to conform to the SIP on July 24, 2012. Documentation related to the public and interagency consultation process conducted to develop the TIP is contained in Appendix A.


6

Section 3. Project-Level Conformity

3.1 Carbon Monoxide Hot-Spot Analysis

The California Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (CO Protocol) was used to analyze CO impacts for the SR-71 Freeway Conversion with HOV Lanes project (see Appendix B). The hot-spot analysis covered the most congested intersections affected by the project in 2029 and 2050.

The ambient air quality effects of traffic emissions were evaluated qualitatively according to the CO Protocol. The project screens out at Level 7 of the flow chart at Figure 3 in the CO Protocol; and therefore will not have the potential for causing or worsening violation of the NAAQS for CO.

The original ND/FONSI document for this project does not identify specific mitigation, minimization, or avoidance measures for CO. A written commitment to implement such control measures is, therefore, not required.

The proposed project will comply with any local, state, and federal rules and regulations developed as a result of implementing control or mitigation measures and/or strategies in the CO SIP. Approval of the re-evaluation document for this project, expected in December 2012, will be considered a written commitment to implement the applicable CO mitigation or control measures identified as a condition of the RTP and FTIP conformity determination.

3.2 PM2.5/PM10 Hot-Spot Analysis

Qualitative PM hot spot analysis is required under the US EPA Transportation Conformity rule for a Project of Air Quality Concern (POAQC), as described in the US EPA's Final Rule of March 10, 2006 (U.S. EPA Guidance of March 29, 2006). Projects that are not POAQC do not require detailed PM hot-spot analysis. According to the EPA Transportation Conformity Guidance (final Rule), the following types of projects are considered POAQC:

1) New or expanded highway projects that have a significant number of or significant increase in diesel vehicles (significant number is defined as greater than 125,000 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) and 8% or more of such AADT is diesel truck traffic, or in practice 10,000 truck AADT or more regardless of total AADT; significant increase is defined in practice as a 10% increase in heavy duty truck traffic);

2) Projects affecting intersections that are at a Level of Service D, E, F, with a significant number of diesel vehicles, or that that will change to Level of Service D, E, or F because of increased traffic volumes from a significant number of diesel vehicles related to the project;

3) New bus and rail terminals and transfer points that have a significant number of diesel vehicles congregating at a single location;

4) Expanded bus and rail terminals and transfer points that significantly increase the number of diesel vehicles congregating at a single location; or


7

5) Projects in or affecting locations, areas, or categories of sites which are identified in the PM2.5 or PM10 implementation plan or implementation plan submission, as appropriate, as sites of possible violation.

The project proposes to convert the existing expressway along SR-71 to a full freeway with 3 mixed flow lanes and a HOV lane in each direction of travel, approximately from SR-60 to I-10. Based on the current and forecast traffic data, the SR-71 corridor within the limits of the project currently experiences and is projected to have a significant number of diesel vehicles. The project is therefore considered to be of air quality concern as described in 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1)(i).

The project has undergone Interagency Consultation (IAC). IAC participants concurred that the project a POAQC (see Appendix C).

A PM hot-spot analysis has been conducted for the project, as described in Appendix D. The project is expected to reduce the severity and number of localized PM2.5 and PM10 violations in the project area.

The original ND/FONSI document for this project does not identify specific mitigation, minimization, or avoidance measures for PM2.5 or PM10. A written commitment to implement such control measures is, therefore, not required.

The proposed project will comply with any local, state, and federal rules and regulations developed as a result of implementing control or mitigation measures and/or strategies in the PM10 SIP. Approval of the re-evaluation document for this project, expected in December 2012, will be considered a written commitment to implement the applicable mitigation or control measures identified as a condition of the RTP and FTIP conformity determination.

3.3 Construction-Related Hot-Spot Emissions

As construction of the project is expected to last less than 5 years, construction-related emissions were not considered in the hot-spot analysis.

Appendix A. Additional Documentation Related to Regional Conformity

Regional Emissions Analysis Conducted for Conforming RTP

The regional emissions analysis found that regional emissions will not exceed the SIP’s emission budgets for mobile sources in the build year, a horizon year at least 20 years from when conformity analysis started, and additional years meeting conformity regulation requirements for periodic analysis. The regional emissions analysis was based on the latest population and employment projections for the SCAG area that were adopted by the SCAG at the time the conformity analysis was started on September 2, 2010. These assumptions are less than five years old. The modeling was conducted using current and future population, employment, traffic, and congestion estimates. The traffic data, including the fleet mix data, were based on the most recently available vehicle registration data included in the EMFAC2007 model. The EMFAC2007 model, developed by the California Air Resources Board, is the most recent emissions model approved for use in California by the U.S. EPA.

Public and Interagency Consultation Process for TIP

The federal TIP was developed in accordance with SCAG policies for community input and interagency consultation procedures. These procedures ensure that the public has adequate opportunity to be informed of the federal TIP development process and encourages public participation and comment. The 2011 FTIP complies with all federal and state requirements for interagency consultation and public involvement. SCAG’s Transportation Conformity Working Group serves as a forum for interagency consultation. The Draft 2011 FTIP was released for a 30-day public review period. In addition, three public hearings were held on the Draft 2011 FTIP on July 14, 21, and 22, 2010. The draft document was published on the web and hard copies of the draft documents were distributed to many libraries across the SCAG region. Any comments received on the Draft 2011 FTIP were addressed prior to the SCAG adoption of the Final 2011 FTIP on September 2, 2010. The federal approval of the 2011 FTIP was issued on December 14, 2010. The Amendment No. 11-29 to the 2011 FTIP was approved by the U.S. DOT on July 24, 2012.

Listing for this Project (LA0B951) as it appears in the RTP and FTIP is attached.

Project List 25

FTIP ProjectsCounty System FTIP ID Route Description Project Cost

($1,000’s)LOS ANGELES STATE

HIGHWAYLA0F098 10 ROUTE 010: L.A. COUNTY I-10 AND I-605 IC;CONSTRUCT ONE/TWO LANE BRIDGE STRUCTURE, BRANCHING OFF SB OF RTE 605 TO EB OF

RTE 10 AT-GRADE CONNECTOR RAMP (EA 24540, PPNO 3529; CONSTRUCT ONE-LANE CONNECTOR FROM SB I-605 TO WB I-10.$78,760

LOS ANGELES STATE HIGHWAY

LA01342 10 ROUTE 010: RT 10 FROM RT 605 TO PUENTE AVE HOV LANES (8+0 TO 8+2) (EA# 117070, PPNO 0306H) PPNO 3333 3382 AB 3090 REP (TCRP #40)

$200,064


LA000548 10 ROUTE 10: FROM PUENTE TO CITRUS HOV LANES FROM 8 TO 10 LANES & SOUNDWALLS (C-ISTEA 77720, 95 STIP-IIP) (EA# 117080,11172, 1170U, PPNO# 0309N, 0309S)

$184,522


LA0B875 10 ROUTE 10: HOV LANES FROM CITRUS TO ROUTE 57/210 – (EA# 11934, PPNO# 0310B) $192,643


LA0G665 14 COMPLETE PA/ED FOR AN APPROXIMATE 63-MILE WEST-EAST FREEWAY/EXPRESSWAY AND POSSIBLE TOLL FACILITY BETWEEN SR-14 IN LA COUNTY AND SR-18 IN SB COUNTY. HIGH DESERT CORRIDOR PA/ED COMBINES THE LA COUNTY MEASURE R PROJECT FROM SR-14 TO I-15 AND SB COUNTY FEDERAL EARMARKS PROVIDED TO CITY OF VICTORVILLE FOR US-395 TO SR-18. BOTH PROJECTS AND FUNDS ARE COMBINED TO COMPLETE THE PA/ED FROM SR-14 TO SR-18. [EA 26000]

$30,000


LA0C8102 14 ROUTE 14: SR-14 FREEWAY/AVENUE I INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS-WIDENING AVE I FROM 2 TO 3 LANES IN EACH DIRECTION, ADDING DUAL LEFT TURN LANES, AND WIDENING A BRIDGE STRUCTURE. PPNO 3123.

$10,581


LA0D336 14 ROUTE 14: SR14/AVENUE K INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS. WIDEN NORTHBOUND OFFRAMP AND 15TH STREET WEST. WIDEN N/B OFFRAMP FROM 3 TO 4 LANES AT AVE K/15TH ST-W.

$4,250


LAE0357 19 CONSTRUCT NEW LEFT TURN LANE AT THE STATE ROUTE 19 AND TELSTAR. THE ADDITION OF A SECONDARY LEFT TURN LANE AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE INTERSECTION OF ROSEMEAD BLVD (STATE) AND TELSTAR AVE. PROJECT USING $347 TOLL CREDIT FOR CONSTRUCTION PHASE IN FY 10/11 FOR STPL AND DEMO FUNDS.

$2,360


LA0G600 47 ROUTE 047: REPLACEMENT OF SCHUYLER HEIM BRIDGE TO INCLUDE 2 THRU LANES AND 1 AUX LANE NB; AND 3 THRU LANES AND 1 AUX LANE SB (EA 13820, PPNO 0444E).

$278,993


LA0D45 47 SR-47 EXPRESSWAY:REPLACEMENT OF SCHUYLER HEIM BRIDGE TO INCLUDE 2 THRU LANES AND 1 AUX LANE NB; AND 3 THRU LANES AND 1 AUX LANE SB; CONSTRUCT EXPRESSWAY AND 2-LANE FLYOVER. SAFETEA-LU #712 & #3797

$687,000


LA0D391 47 VINCENT THOMAS BRIDGE STUDY – DEVELOP AND ANALYZE ALTERNATIVES TO INCREASE NEEDED CAPACITY. SAFETEA-LU HPP # 297 NON-CAPACITY

$1,400


LA0D393 60 GRAND AVENUE/SR 57/60 INTERCHANGE MODIFICATION: RESTRIPE THE EXISTING GRAND AVE, ADD WB ON-RAMP AND ADD WB AUX LANE, ADD SECOND SB LFT TURN LN AT EB RAMP (09 CFP 3137)

$19,002


LA0D450 60 RECONSTRUCT SR 60/GRAND AV INTERCHANGE – WIDEN GRAND AV: SB ADD 1THRU LN (2 EXSTNG); NB ADD 1 THRU LN (3 EXSTNG), REPLACE GRAND AV OC, ADD EB LOOP ON-RAMP, CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL EB THRU LN FROM GRAND AVE TRAP LN TO SR57 ADD LN, ADD TWO BYPASS RAMP CONNECTORS, ADD AUX LNS EB AND WB FROM EAST TO WEST JUNCTION OF THE CONFLUENCE.

$257,900


LA0D399 60 ROUTE 60: CONSTRUCTION OF NEW PARTIAL DIAMOND INTERCHANGE FOR STATE ROUTE 60 (SR-60) AT LEMON AVE (SAFETEA-LU # 587).

$19,000


LA0B951 71 ROUTE 71: ROUTE 10 TO ROUTE 60 – EXPRESSWAY TO FREEWAY CONVERSION – ADD 1 HOV LANE AND 1 MIXED FLOW LANE . (2001 CFP 8349, TCRP #50) (EA# 210600, PPNO 2741) (TCRP #50)

$250,000


LA0G317 71 STATE ROUTE 71 EXPANSION FROM SR 60 TO I-10 POMONA CA (ADD PA&ED ONLY). $878

s129668

Rectangle

2011 Federal Transportation Improvement Progra

Los Angeles CountyState Highway

Including Amendments 1-15, 17-26, and 28-29(In $000`s)

ProjectID County Air Basin Model RTP ID Program Route Begin End System Conformity Category AmendmentLA0D399 Los Angeles SCAB LA0D399 CARH3 60 23 22 S NON-EXEMPT 17

Description: PTC 19,000 Agency DIAMOND BAR

Route 60: CONSTRUCTION OF NEW PARTIAL DIAMOND INTERCHANGE FOR STATE ROUTE 60 (SR-60) AT LEMON AVE (SAFETEA-LU # 587).

Fund ENG R/W CON Total Prior 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015 2015/2016 TotalDEMO-SAFETEA-LU 1,120 8,400 9,520 1,120 8,400 9,520AGENCY 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500CITY FUNDS 1,107 3,206 4,313 2,389 1,924 4,313PROP "C25" FUNDS 2,294 2,294 2,294 2,294LA0D399 Total 2,500 2,227 13,900 18,627 2,500 2,389 3,414 10,324 18,627

ProjectID County Air Basin Model RTP ID Program Route Begin End System Conformity Category AmendmentLA0D393 Los Angeles SCAB 1M0104 CAR75 60 23.87 24.48 S NON-EXEMPT 1

Description: PTC 19,002 Agency INDUSTRY

GRAND AVENUE/SR 57/60 INTERCHANGE MODIFICATION: RESTRIPE THE EXISTING GRAND AVE, ADD WB ON-RAMP AND ADD WB AUX LANE, ADD SECOND SB LFT TURN LN AT EB RAMP (09 CFP 3137)Fund ENG R/W CON Total Prior 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015 2015/2016 TotalAGENCY 1,500 3,287 5,464 10,251 1,500 1,051 3,246 4,454 10,251PROP "C25" FUNDS 3,287 5,464 8,751 1,051 3,246 4,454 8,751LA0D393 Total 1,500 6,574 10,928 19,002 1,500 2,102 6,492 8,908 19,002

ProjectID County Air Basin Model RTP ID Program Route Begin End System Conformity Category AmendmentLA0D450 Los Angeles SCAB 1M0104 CAYT3 60 30.4 24.5 S NON-EXEMPT 24

Description: PTC 257,900 Agency INDUSTRY

RECONSTRUCT SR 60/GRAND AV INTERCHANGE - WIDEN GRAND AV: SB ADD 1THRU LN (2 EXSTNG); NB ADD 1 THRU LN (3 EXSTNG), REPLACE GRAND AV OC, ADD EB LOOP ON-RAMP, CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL EB THRU LN FROM GRAND AVE TRAP LN TO SR57 ADD LN, ADD TWO BYPASS RAMP CONNECTORS, ADD AUX LNS EB AND WB FROM EAST TO WEST JUNCTION OF THE CONFLUENCE.Fund ENG R/W CON Total Prior 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015 2015/2016 TotalAGENCY 8,500 9,000 17,500 35,000 7,000 10,500 17,500 35,000CITY FUNDS 222,900 222,900 38,225 73,225 73,225 38,225 222,900LA0D450 Total 8,500 9,000 240,400 257,900 7,000 10,500 55,725 73,225 73,225 38,225 257,900

ProjectID County Air Basin Model RTP ID Program Route Begin End System Conformity Category AmendmentLA0B951 Los Angeles SCAB LA0B951 CAR62 71 .5 4.8 S TCM Committed 17

Description: PTC 250,000 Agency CALTRANS

Route 71: ROUTE 10 TO ROUTE 60 - EXPRESSWAY TO FREEWAY CONVERSION - ADD 1 HOV LANE AND 1 MIXED FLOW LANE . (2001 CFP 8349, TCRP #50) (EA# 210600, PPNO 2741) (TCRP #50)Fund ENG R/W CON Total Prior 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015 2015/2016 TotalNATIONAL HWY SYSTEM 1,592 1,592 1,592 1,592TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF 11,800 11,800 4,800 7,000 11,800LA0B951 Total 13,392 13,392 6,392 7,000 13,392

Print Date: 7/30/2012 4:31:49 PM Page: 9 of 20

s129668

Rectangle

Appendix B. Carbon Monoxide Hot-Spot Analysis Modeling Procedures

The CO Protocol was used to analyze CO impacts for the proposed project. The CO Protocol Flowcharts were utilized in determining the type of project-level CO analysis required for the proposed project. Responses to the CO Protocol at each step and level are provided below. The flowchart begins with Section 3.1.1. The CO Protocol paths taken are attached.

Q: 3.1.1 Is this project exempt from all emissions analyses? (see Table 1)

A: NO. Table 1 of the CO Protocol is Table 2 of 40 CFR 93.126. Section 3.1.1 is inquiring if the project is exempt from all the requirements to determine conformity. The proposed project is not classified according to Table 1; and therefore, it is not deemed exempt from all emissions analyses.

Q: 3.1.2. Is project exempt from regional emissions analyses? (see Table 2)

A: NO. Table 2 of the CO Protocol is Table 3 of 40 CFR 93.127. The question is attempting to determine if project is exempt from regional emissions analyses. The proposed project is not classified according to Table 2; and therefore, it is not deemed exempt from regional emissions analyses.

Q: 3.1.3. Is project locally defined as regionally significant?

A: YES. Projects not listed in Table 1 nor 2 of the Protocol are usually considered regionally significant (defined in 40 CFR 93.101 as projects that would normally be included in the modeling of a metropolitan area’s transportation network) unless otherwise stipulated via interagency consultation. The project is considered as regionally significant.

Q: 3.1.4. Is project in a federal attainment area?

A: NO. The Basin is nonattainment of federal standards for more than one criteria pollutants, eg, PM10, PM2.5, and Ozone (8-hour). The flowchart directs the project evaluation to Section 3.1.5.

Q: 3.1.5. Is there a currently conforming RTP and TIP?

A: YES. The Plan and TIP recently approved by FHWA are the 2012 RTP and the 2011 FTIP. The flowchart directs the project evaluation to Section 3.1.6.

Q: 3.1.6. Is the project included in the regional emissions analysis supporting the currently conforming RTP and TIP?

A: YES. The project is included in the FHWA approved 2012 RTP and corresponding 2011 FTIP with project ID# LA0B951. The flowchart directs the project evaluation to Section 3.1.7.

Q: 3.1.7. Has project design concept and /or scope changed significantly from that in regional analysis?

A: NO. The project has not changed significantly with regards to scope and/or design concept. The flowchart directs the project evaluation to Section 3.1.9.

Q: 3.1.9. Examine local impacts.

A: Section 3.1.9 of the flowchart directs the project evaluation to Section 4, Local Analysis, of the CO Protocol. This concludes the flowchart presented in Figure 1 of the CO Protocol. The flowchart is now continued to Section 4.

The project-level local analysis in Section 4 begins at level 1:

Q: Level 1. Is the project in a CO non-attainment area?

A: No. The Basin is designated as attainment-maintenance of the federal CO standard.

Q: Was the area redesignated as “attainment” after the 1990 Clean Air Act? (see section 4.1.2)

A: Yes. A CO Maintenance Plan for the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) was approved effective June 11, 2007, and its approval was published in the Federal Register on May 11, 2007.

Q: Has “continued attainment” been verified with the local Air District, if appropriate? (see section 4.1.3)

A: Yes. Section 4.1.3 of the CO Protocol states that a project in areas where continued attainment has been verified (or where proposed redesignation is so recent that the annual review of monitoring data has not yet occurred) should proceed to Section 4.7 (Level 7 in Figure 3).

Q: Level 7. Does the project worsen air quality? (see Section 4.7.1)

The CO Protocol Section 4.7.1 recommends the following criteria to be used to determine whether the project is likely to worsen air quality for the area substantially affected by the project. Project specific responses to each criterion are presented below as well.

a. The project significantly increases the percentage of vehicles operating in cold start mode. Increasing the number of vehicles operating in cold start mode by as little as 2 percent should be considered potentially significant.

Response: The existing land uses within the project area are anticipated to remain unchanged as a result of implementing any of the proposed alternatives. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase the percentage of vehicles operating in cold start mode.

b. The project significantly increases traffic volumes. Increases in traffic volumes in excess of 5 percent should be considered potentially significant. Increasing the traffic volume by less than 5 percent may still be potentially significant if there is also a reduction in average speeds.

Response: The project proposes four build alternatives, namely Alternative 2, Alternative 3, Alternative 4, and Alternative 4A. Alternative 1 is the no-build alternative while intersections under Alternative 4A scenario are anticipated to perform the same as those under Alternative 3 scenario. A total of 27 intersections were analyzed in the traffic study prepared by CH2MHill in August 2012, and AM and PM peak hourly volumes were estimated for the current conditions, in the opening year of 2029, and in the design year of 2050. Based on the traffic analysis and the scope of the build alternatives, three intersections are proposed to be eliminated; and five other intersections are anticipated to experience no traffic redistribution effect as a result of the project alternatives. As a result, only the remaining 19 intersections are analyzed herein. Table 1 below provides a summary of changes in the AM and PM Peak hourly volumes for the build alternatives as compared to the no-build alternative in 2029 and 2050.

Based on the traffic volume data summarized below, the proposed project is anticipated to increase traffic volumes by more than 5 percent at a number of intersections.

c. The project worsens traffic flow. For uninterrupted roadway segments, a reduction in average speeds (within a range of 3 to 50 mph) should be regarded as worsening traffic flow. For intersection segments, a reduction in average speed or an increase in average delay should be considered as worsening traffic flow.

Response: A summary of changes in the AM and PM Peak hourly delays in 2029 and 2050 is provided below in Table 2. Based on the delays data summarized below, the proposed project is anticipated to increase delays at a number of intersections.

Table 1. Changes in AM and PM Peak Hourly Volumes in 2029 and 2050

No Intersection

Changes from No‐Bld in 2029,In % (AM/PM)

Changes from No‐Bld in 2050,In % (AM/PM)

Alt 2 Alt 3 or Alt 4A

Alt 4 Alt 2 Alt 3 or Alt 4A

Alt 4

1 Phillips Dr/Westmont Ave 31/31.8 60.8/71 65.2/45.8 30.9/31.6 60.2/70.4 64.6/45.5

2 Westmont Ave/9th St 18.6/61.3 68.6/76.9 68.6/73.8 17.8/60.6 67.6/75.6 67.6/72.9

3 Mission Blvd/Westmont Ave 7.6/7.3 14/9.1 14/8.7 7.5/7.3 13.9/9.1 13.9/8.8

4 Mission Blvd/SR‐71 SB Ramp 6.4/1 2.5/3.5 11.7/2.3 6.4/1 11.7/3.5 11.7/2.3

5 Mission Blvd/SR‐71 NB

Ramp ‐2.5/‐2.7 ‐0.1/‐2 0/‐1.9 ‐2.5/‐2.6 ‐0.2/‐2 0/‐1.8

6 Mission Blvd/Dudley St ‐5.3/‐5 ‐5.3/‐5 ‐5.3/‐5 ‐5.3/‐6.6 ‐5.3/‐6.6 ‐5.3/‐6.6

7 Dudley St/9th St ‐7.4/‐9.9 ‐7.4/‐11.7 ‐7.1/‐9.9 ‐7.7/‐9.2 ‐7.7/‐9.2 ‐7.7/‐9.2

8 Mission Blvd/White Ave ‐1.7/‐1.2 ‐1.7/‐1.2 ‐1.7/‐1.2 ‐1.8/‐1.4 ‐1.8/‐1.2 ‐1.8/‐1.2

9 White Ave/Phillips Blvd ‐5.3/‐6.3 ‐5.3/‐6.3 ‐5.3/‐6.3 ‐7.6/‐4.6 ‐7.6/‐4.6 ‐7.6/‐4.6

10 Santa Clara Dr/Village Loop

Rd 2.8/1.8 ‐45.8/62.7 2.4/1.8 2.7/1.8 2/1.5 2.4/1.8

11 Old Pomona Rd/Village Loop

Rd 33.2/48.9 25.5/39.4 11.9/20 23/72.9 24/39 10.7/20.1

12 Lexington Ave/White Ave ‐6.5/‐6.6 ‐6.5/‐6.6 ‐6.5/‐6.6 ‐6.4/‐6.5 ‐6.4/‐6.5 3.4/2.6

13 Village Loop Rd/Canyon Rim

Rd 42.7/37.6 34.2/32.3 3.5/2.5 42.5/37.3 34.1/32.1 3.6/2.4

14 Village Loop Rd/Phillips

Ranch Rd 17.2/12.5 13.4/10.7 3/2.1 17.2/12.6 13.4/10.7 3/2.2

15 Phillips Ranch Rd/Rio

Rancho Rd 14/9.9 11.3/9.2 2.2/1.6 31.9/9.9 28.7/9.2 18.2/1.6

16 Rio Rancho Rd/Meadow

View Dr 23.5/20.5 16.9/15.3 5/3.6 23.5/20.6 17/14 5/3.7

17 Rio Rancho Rd/SR‐71 SB

Ramps 17.2/6.8 12.2/4.9 1 2.8/3.7 17.2/6.9 12.2/5 12.8/3.7

18 Rio Rancho Rd/SR‐71 NB

Ramps ‐4/0.9 ‐5.8/0.8 ‐3.2/3 ‐4.1/0.9 ‐5.9/0.8 ‐3.3/3

19 Rio Rancho Rd/Auto Center

Dr ‐3.8/‐3.8 ‐3.8/‐3.8 2/1.5 ‐3.8/‐3.7 ‐3.8/‐3.7 2/1.5

Table 2. Changes in AM and PM Delays in 2029 and 2050.

No. Intersection

Changes from No‐Build in 2029, Delays in seconds (AM/PM)

Changes from No‐Build in 2029, Delays in seconds (AM/PM)

Alt 2 Alt 3 and Alt4A

Alt 4 Alt 2 Alt 3 and Alt 4A

Alt 4

1 Phillips Dr/Westmont Ave 0.6/0.3 1.8/1.9 1.9/0.6 0.9/0.5 2.3/2.6 2.6/1

2 Westmont Ave/9th St ‐1.2/‐0.5 ‐2/‐0.8 ‐2.1/‐0.9 ‐1.2/‐0.5 ‐1.9/‐0.8 ‐2/‐0.9

3 Mission Blvd/Westmont Ave 0.5/0.5 1.8/0.7 1.7/0.7 0.9/0.2 1.4/0.4 1.4/0.4

4 Mission Blvd/SR‐71 SB Ramp 1.8/9.9 3.6/8.9 3.7/3.2 4.2/5.3 2.1/10.1 2.3/2.7

5 Mission Blvd/SR‐71 NB

Ramp ‐4.6/‐0.5 ‐2.5/1.1 ‐2.1/1.2 ‐9.3/0.3 ‐5.8/0.6 ‐5.1/0.8

6 Mission Blvd/Dudley St ‐11.2/‐0.3 ‐11.2/‐0.3 ‐11.2/‐0.3 ‐11.6/‐0.5 ‐11.6/‐0.5 ‐11.6/‐0.5

7 Dudley St/9th St ‐0.5/‐0.6 ‐0.5/‐0.6 ‐0.5/‐0.6 ‐0.9/‐0.9 ‐0.9/‐0.9 ‐0.9/‐0.9

8 Mission Blvd/White Ave ‐0.7/‐0.7 ‐0.7/‐0.7 ‐0.7/‐0.7 ‐1.1/‐0.3 ‐1.1/‐0.3 ‐1.1/‐0.3

9 White Ave/Phillips Blvd 0/‐0.4 0/‐0.4 0/‐0.4 0/‐0.6 0/‐0.6 0/‐0.6

10 Santa Clara Dr/Village Loop

Rd 0.6/1.4 0.5/1.1 0.5/1.6 2.5/1.9 1.4/1.4 1.6/1.7

11 Old Pomona Rd/Village Loop

Rd 2.1/0.6 1.5/0.5 0.7/0.1 2.9/0.7 1.9/0.6 1/0.3

12 Lexington Ave/White Ave ‐0.1/0 ‐0.1/0 3.2/1.7 0/0 0/0 4.1/2.3

13 Village Loop Rd/Canyon Rim

Rd 11.2/2.4 8.2/2 0.5/0.1 20.8/3.1 14.9/2.7 0.7/0.2

14 Village Loop Rd/Phillips

Ranch Rd 39.8/36.4 32/34.2 ‐0.8/5.8 62.4/34.4 44.6/45.5 ‐0.8/7.2

15 Phillips Ranch Rd/Rio

Rancho Rd 39.4/3.9 25.5/5.4 1.1/0 57.6/10 39.2/9.9 1.8/0.6

16 Rio Rancho Rd/Meadow

View Dr 161.9/9.5 75.5/0.3 27.1/1.6

396.8/17.7

218.2/1 82.6/2.5

17 Rio Rancho Rd/SR‐71 SB

Ramps 7.6/1.9 4.3/1.4 5.8/0.4 19.8/1.2 9.2/1.9 6.8/0

18 Rio Rancho Rd/SR‐71 NB

Ramps ‐0.7/‐18 2/‐19.1 22.1/9 ‐5/‐23.2 ‐9/‐22.1 13.8/5.7

19 Rio Rancho Rd/Auto Center

Dr ‐0.8/‐0.6 ‐3.5/‐0.6 4/0.9 ‐0.7/‐2.3 ‐1/‐2.1 9.1/‐0.3

*Delay in seconds.

Based on the evaluation above, the project is likely to worsen air quality and the analysis is proceeded to the next level of the CO Protocol.

Q: Level 7. Is project suspected of resulting in higher CO concentrations than those existing within the region at the time of attainment demonstration? (see Section 4.7.2)

Section 4.7.2 of the CO Protocol recommends selecting one of the worst-case locations in the region where attainment has been demonstrated and comparing it to the “build” scenario of the project with a similar configuration. The Westmont Avenue and 9th Street intersection is the only one, among the 19 intersections analyzed in the previous step, which has a similar configuration as those intersections in the attainment plan; and is evaluated to likely worsen air quality based on the increase in its peak-hourly volumes under the “build” scenarios.

Therefore, the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue from the SCAQMD 2003 AQMP Appendix V attainment demonstration was compared with the intersection of Westmont Avenue and 9th Street to evaluate whether the project would result in higher CO concentrations using the following conditions, as set forth in the CO Protocol.

a. The receptors at the intersection of Westmont Avenue and 9th Street would be the same distance or farther from the traveled roadway than the receptors at the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue for which attainment has been demonstrated. The attainment demonstration evaluated the CO concentrations at a distance of 3 meters (10 feet) from the edge of roadways. Sensitive receptors are located farther than 3 meters (10 feet) in the vicinity of Westmont Avenue and 9th Street intersection.

b. The geometry of Westmont Avenue and 9th Street intersection is not significantly different than the geometry of the Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue intersection, as both intersections have four legs. However, the Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue intersection has more number of lanes when compared to the Westmont Avenue and 9th Street intersection. Table 3 below presents the number of through lanes at each intersection.

Table 3. Number of Through Lanes at Intersections.

Intersection Number of Lanes

Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound

Wilshire/Veteran 2 2 4 4

Westmont/9th 1 1 1 1

c. The Westmont Avenue and 9th Street intersection as well as the Wilshire Boulevard and

Veteran Avenue intersection are both located in the SCAB and thus the general meteorology and climate are not anticipated to differ significantly.

d. Peak-hourly traffic lane volumes at the Westmont Avenue and 9th Street intersection are less than those at the Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue intersection based on the summary presented below in Table 4.

Table 4. Peak‐Hourly Traffic Lane Volumes at Intersections.

Intersection Peak Hour Traffic Lane Volume (AM/PM)

Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound

Wilshire/Veteran 280/467 361/700 1,238/517 458/829

Westmont/9th

2029

Alt 2 66/157 79/100 12/4 12/4

Alt 3 / Alt 4A 195/175 134/122 12/4 12/4

Alt 4 206/177 139/125 12/4 12/4

2050

Alt 2 75/177 89/113 14/5 14/5

Alt 3 219/197 151/137 14/5 14/5

Alt 4 232/199 156/141 14/5 14/5

e. The percentage of vehicles operating during the peak hour in cold start mode at the

Westmont Avenue and 9th Street intersection are anticipated to be the same or lower than that at the Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue intersection.

f. The Westmont Avenue and 9th Street intersection is located in a primarily residential area. As a result, the percentage of heavy-duty gas trucks utilizing the Westmont Avenue and 9th Street intersection is not anticipated to be higher than that for the Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue intersection.

g. The average delay and queue length for the Westmont Avenue and 9th Street intersection would be expected to be less than that for the Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue intersection used in the attainment demonstration. The LOS for the Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue intersection used in the attainment demonstration is not available; however, based on the traffic volumes and intersection geometry, the Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue intersection is likely to operate at LOS F. On the contrary, the Westmont Avenue and 9th Street intersection is anticipated to operate at LOS A in 2050 based on the traffic study.

h. The 8-hour maximum CO concentrations measured at the Pomona station between 2007 and 2011 range from 1.6 to 2 ppm while the maximum areawide concentrations considered in the attainment demonstration at the Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue intersection range from 1.3 to 2.3 ppm. The background concentrations for the project are in the same range as those at the location where the attainment has been demonstrated.

All of the conditions are satisfied for the Westmont Avenue and 9th Street intersection under all “build” scenarios. According to the CO Protocol, when all the conditions are satisfied, there is no reason to expect higher concentrations at the project intersection than at the Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue intersection where the attainment has been demonstrated. The evaluation of CO hot-spot for the project is thus satisfactory and no further analysis, such as modeling, is deemed necessary.

Figure 4.

Appendix C. PM Interagency Consultation

s129668

Rectangle

Appendix D. PM Hot-Spot Analysis

Qualitative PM2.5 and PM10

Hot-Spot Analysis

CONVERSION TO FREEWAY WITH HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE (HOV) LANES

State Route 71, Post Miles 0.5 to 4.8 IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

FROM STATE ROUTE 60 TO INTERSTATE 10

Caltrans EA: 07-21060 Project ID: LA0B951

Prepared by California Department of Transportation, District 7

Division of Planning, Public Transportation, and Local Assistance Office of Environmental Engineering and Corridor Studies

100 South Main Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012

September 2012

End Project

Begin Project

1

Introduction

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter on July 18, 1997, establishing a standard for particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5µm in size (PM2.5). The EPA then published their final rule on particulate matter designations and classifications in the Federal Register on January 5, 2005, and established areas designated as nonattainment, unclassifiable or attainment/classifiable. In March 2006, the EPA published a final rule that established the transportation conformity criteria and procedures (71FR12468) as well as the “Transportation Conformity Guidance for Qualitative Hot-Spot Analyses in PM2.5 and PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas” (March 2006 Guidance), which provides guidance and summarizes requirements for hot-spot analyses for projects in maintenance and nonattainment areas. The EPA later revised the level of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard to 35 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) (71FR61144) in October 2006. The March 2006 final rule requires a qualitative PM2.5 and PM10 hot-spot analysis to be completed for a project of air quality concern (POAQC). The final rule in 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1) defines the POAQC as:

(i) New or expanded highway projects that have a significant number of or significant increase in diesel vehicles;

(ii) Projects affecting intersections that are at Level-of-Service (LOS) D, E, or F with a significant number of diesel vehicles, or those that will change to LOS D, E, or F because of increased traffic volumes from a significant number of diesel vehicles related to the project;

(iii) New bus and rail terminals and transfer points that have a significant number of diesel vehicles congregating at a single location;

(iv) Expanded bus and rail terminals and transfer points that significantly increase the number of diesel vehicles congregating at a single location; and

(v) Projects in or affecting locations, areas, or categories of sites which are identified in the PM2.5 and PM10 applicable implementation plan or implementation plan submission, as appropriate, as sites of violation or possible violation.

The project under study in this Qualitative PM2.5 and PM10 Hot-Spot analysis (Analysis) proposes to convert the existing expressway along State Route 71 (SR-71) to a full freeway with 3 mixed flow lanes and a high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction of travel approximately from SR-60 to Interstate 10 (I-10). Based on the current and forecast traffic data, the SR-71 corridor within the limits of the project currently experiences and is projected to have a significant number of diesel vehicles. The project is therefore considered to be of air quality concern as described in 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1)(i); and requires this Analysis. This Analysis has been prepared according to the procedures and methodology provided in the March 2006 Guidance jointly published by EPA and FHWA; and does not include dispersion analysis provided in the December 2010 Transportation Conformity Guidance for Quantitative Hot-Spot Analyses in PM2.5 and PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas (Quantitative Guidance) since it is within the grace period allowed.

2

Project Description and Location

SR-71 is a major regional highway transportation facility traversing parts of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside County. It is a connecting link for major east-west corridors passing through the area and serves as an inland passageway for interregional travel between San Diego and the eastern portion of the Los Angeles area. The route also serves heavy commute traffic originating in the communities of Chino, Ontario, and Pomona that is destined for employment centers in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. The purpose of this project is to alleviate traffic congestion by increasing capacity on SR-71 from I-10 to SR-60 to handle the forecasted traffic volumes in coming years due to extensive development in the region. SR-71 is currently configured as a two-lane expressway throughout most of the project limits. SR-71 has a federal functional classification of P1M (Urban-Extension of Rural Principal Arterial into Urban Areas). SR-71 is included in the Federal Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) national network for oversized trucks within the project limits. SR-71 is not included in the Department of Defense California Priority Network; and is not part of the Interregional Road System (IRRS). SR-71 experiences congestion while carrying substantial traffic volumes through the study area during peak hours. Travel demands and urban growth projections indicate that unacceptable levels of service will extend for longer periods of time over larger sections during peak periods unless improvements are made. There is a need to eliminate signalized at-grade intersections to reduce accidents and improve safety by implementing the current Caltrans design standards. The following list is a summary of problems related to the SR-71: Congestion, existing and future; Growth and the need for carpool incentives; Local circulation problems; Accidents; Rural designs in urban areas; and Missing gap in freeway HOV system. The proposed project passes through the City of Pomona (City) in the eastern Los Angeles County. The project area is generally urbanized and the communities along the proposed project are largely developed. Existing land uses in the City along the SR-71 include: residential south of Mission Boulevard except for some commercial uses near the intersection with Rio Rancho Road; and a mix of commercial and industrial north of Mission Boulevard. There are several educational institutions along the SR-71, including elementary, middle, and high schools: Westmont Elementary School approximately 740 feet west; Decker Elementary School approximately 1500 feet west; Ranch Hills Elementary School approximately 0.92 mile west; Ganesha High School and Marshall Middle School less than 0.25 mile northeast; Lexington Elementary School less than 0.25 mile northeast; and Garey High School approximately 0.4 mile northeast. Respective land uses along the SR-71 corridor and schools are identified in Figure 1.

3

An Initial Study/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) that led to a Negative Declaration/Finding of No Significant Impact (ND/FONSI) was prepared by Caltrans and was approved by the FHWA in June 2002. Caltrans is currently in the process of preparing an Environmental Re-evaluation for the proposed project. This Analysis is being performed to meet the EPA’s requirements in its March 10, 2006 final rule on particulate matter hot-spot analysis. The project proposes to add one (1) mixed flow lane and one (1) HOV lane in each direction on the SR-71 approximately between I-10 and SR-60, converting the existing four-lane expressway to an eight-lane freeway. The project will not only increase the capacity of the facility, but more importantly, upgrade the facility to the current standards while improving safety by eliminating at-grade intersections. The portion within the project limits, between I-10 and SR-60, is the last remaining segment along the SR-71 to be converted to freeway and to provide HOV lanes. There are currently four (4) Alternatives under study as follows: Alternative 1 – No-Build This Alternative proposes that no action would be taken to construct any upgrades along SR-71 from I-10 to SR-60. As a result, the operational and safety characteristics of the roadway would remain the same and not be consistent with the local and regional transportation planning. Alternative 2 – SR-71 Semi-Depressed with Overcrossing at 9th Street This Alternative proposes to widen SR-71 to a standard 8-lane freeway including three (3) mixed flow lanes and one (1) HOV lane in each direction from I-10 to SR-60. The freeway alignment will be shifted to west (approximately 28-feet maximum) and the freeway profile will be semi-depressed (approximately 15-feet maximum) from south of Mission Boulevard interchange to Rio Rancho Road so that 9th Street can remain open to traffic as an overcrossing. Alternative 3 – SR-71 At-Grade with Frontage Road with No Crossings This Alternative proposes to widen SR-71 to a standard 8-lane freeway including three (3) mixed flow lanes and one (1) HOV lane in each direction from I-10 to SR-60. The freeway profile will be at-grade without any crossing between Mission Boulevard interchange and Rio Ranch Road. A pedestrian overcrossing near 9th Street and a frontage road on the west side of the freeway between Philips Drive and North Ranch Road are also proposed. Alternative 4 – SR-71 At-Grade with Frontage Road with Undercrossing at Old Pomona Road This Alternative proposes to widen SR-71 to a standard 8-lane freeway including three (3) mixed flow lanes and one (1) HOV lane in each direction from I-10 to SR-60. The freeway profile will be at-grade with an overcrossing proposed at Old Pomona Road, which connects to West Lexington Avenue. A pedestrian overcrossing near 9th Street and a frontage road on the west side of the freeway between Philips Drive and Old Pomona Road are also proposed. Alternative 4A – SR-71 At-Grade with Frontage Road with No Undercrossing at Old Pomona Road This Alternative proposes to widen SR-71 to a standard 8-lane freeway including three (3) mixed flow lanes and one (1) HOV lane in each direction from I-10 to SR-60. The freeway profile will be at-grade without any crossing between Mission Boulevard interchange and Rio Rancho Road. A

4

pedestrian overcrossing near 9th Street and a frontage road on the west side of the freeway between Philips Drive and Old Pomona Road are also proposed. The proposed project is currently in environmental re-evaluation with target dates to commence construction in April 2025; and to complete construction by April 2029. Traffic data are projected to 2029 and 2050 to demonstrate fully developed traffic conditions following the opening of completed facilities and to consider the life of the proposed project, which occurs later than the current planning horizon year of 2035. The analysis years are selected to demonstrate conformity in the years during which peak emissions are expected based on the background concentration and anticipated increase in traffic volumes after the project is completed; and when worsening of PM conditions are expected with the traffic that is anticipated to grow during the life of the project. The project is identified in the latest conforming 2012 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and in the 2011 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) with Amendments as LA0B951 with the following description:

Route 10 to Route 60 – Expressway to Freeway conversion – Add 1 HOV Lane and 1 Mixed Flow Lane

The 2012 RTP was adopted by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) on April 4, 2012; and was found to conform by the FHWA on June 4, 2012. The 2011 FTIP was adopted by SCAG on September 2, 2010; and the FHWA made its conformity determination on December 14, 2010. The Amendment to FTIP (Amendment #11-29) was adopted by SCAG on July 20, 2012; and the conformity determination was made by FHWA on July 24, 2012. The proposed project is identified as a Transportation Control Measure (TCM) and its timely implementation is a crucial element in reducing air pollutant emissions from roadway transportation sources.

PM2.5 and PM10 Hot‐Spot Analysis Methodology

The project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) which is designated as nonattainment of federal standards for PM2.5, PM10, and 8-hour ozone among others. The project is considered to be of air quality concern as discussed above. A qualitative hot-spot analysis for PM2.5 and PM10 is therefore deemed necessary to satisfactorily meet the conformity requirements in accordance with EPA’s March 10, 2006 final rule. Caltrans is currently in the process of preparing an environmental reevaluation for the proposed project. A hot-spot analysis is defined in the 40CFR 93.101 as an estimation of likely future localized pollutant concentrations and a comparison of those concentrations to the relevant air quality standards. A project-level hot-spot analysis assesses the air quality impacts on a scale smaller than an entire nonattainment or maintenance area such as a congested freeway corridor. Such an analysis is a means of demonstrating that a transportation project meets Clean Air Act (CAA) conformity requirements to support state and local air quality goals with respect to potential localized air quality impacts. CAA Section 176(c)(1)(B) is the statutory criterion that must be met by all projects in nonattainment and maintenance areas that are subject to transportation conformity. Section 176(c)(1)(B) states that federally supported transportation projects must not "cause or contribute to

5

any new violation of any standard in any area; increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any standard in any area; or delay timely attainment of any standard or any required interim emission reductions or other milestones in any area." The EPA in its March 2006 Guidance has established the following two methods for completing PM2.5 and PM10 hot-spot analyses: A. Comparison to another location with similar characteristics,

B. Air quality studies for the proposed project location. This Analysis uses a combined approach to demonstrate that the proposed project would not result in a new PM2.5 or PM10 violation, worsen any existing violation, or delay attainment.

Types of Emissions Considered

In accordance with the March 2006 Guidance, this Analysis will be based on directly emitted PM2.5 and PM10 emissions and will consider tailpipe, brake wear, and tire wear PM2.5 and PM10 emissions. Precursors of particulate matter and secondary particles are not considered in this Analysis; but they are considered as part of the regional emission analysis prepared for the conforming RTP and TIP Vehicles cause dust from paved and unpaved roads to be re-entrained, or re-suspended, in the atmosphere. According to the March 2006 final rule, road dust emission are to be considered for PM10 hot-spot analysis, and road dust emissions for PM2.5 are to be considered in the hot-spot analyses only if the EPA or the state air agency has made a finding that such emissions are a significant contributor to the air quality problem (40CFR93.102(b)(3)). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has prepared and adopted in June 2007, a Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (Final 2007 AQMP) in which the paved road dust ranks high among the top ten categories of directly emitted PM2.5 in the SCAB. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) incorporated the adopted 2007 AQMP for the SCAB as part of their State Implementation Plan (SIP) for PM2.5. EPA has since approved the emissions inventory; reasonably available control measures/technology demonstration; reasonable further progress; and attainment demonstrations in November 2011 (76FR69928) while disapproving the SIP’s contingency measures and related issues are being resolved. A Draft 2012 AQMP has recently been released for public review. As with the Final 2007 AQMP, the Draft 2012 AQMP also ranks paved road dust as one of top 10 categories for directly emitted PM2.5. Therefore, the re-entrained PM2.5 road dust has been considered in this Analysis. According to the project schedules, the construction will not last more than 5 years. Construction-related emissions due to this project are considered temporary as defined in 40 CFR 93.123(c)(5); and thus are not included in this Analysis. This project will comply with the SCAQMD Fugitive Dust Rules (Rule 403) for any fugitive dusts emitted during the construction. Excavation, transportation, placement, and handling of excavated soils shall result in no visible dust migration. A water truck or tank will be available within the project limits at all times to suppress and control the migration of fugitive dusts from earthwork operations. The project is

6

required comply with any state, federal, and/or local rules and regulations developed as a result of implementing control and mitigation measures proposed as part of their respective SIPs.

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

Nonattainment and maintenance areas are required to attain and maintain two standards for PM2.5 as follows:

24-hour standard: 65 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) (1997 Standard)

35 μg/m3 (2006 Standard)

Annual standard: 15 g/m3.

The 24-hour standard is based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations; and, the annual standard is based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations. Nonattainment and maintenance areas are required to attain and maintain the following standard for PM10:

24-hour standard: 150 g/m3.

The 24-hour PM10 standard is attained when the average number of exceedances in the previous three calendar years is less than or equal to 1. The annual PM10 standard of 50 g/m3 is no longer used for determining the federal attainment status.

Meteorology and Climate

The climate in and around the project area, as with all of Southern California, is controlled largely by the strength and position of the subtropical high-pressure cell over the Pacific Ocean. In general, it maintains relatively moderate temperatures and comfortable humidity, and limits precipitation to a few storms during the winter "wet" season. Within the SCAB, temperatures are normally mild, except in the summer months, which commonly bring substantially higher temperatures. In all portions of the SCAB, temperatures above 100 degrees Fahrenheit have been recorded in recent years. Annual temperature in the vicinity of the proposed project (at Pomona Fairplex) is approximately 65 degrees Fahrenheit, averaged over three decades between 1981 and 2010. Winds in the project area are usually driven by the dominant land/sea breeze circulation system. Regional wind patterns are dominated by daytime onshore sea breezes. At night the wind generally slows and reverses direction traveling towards the sea. Wind directions alter by presence of local canyons, with wind tending to flow parallel to the canyons. During the transition period from one wind pattern to another, the dominant wind direction rotates into the south. The frequency of calm winds (less than 2 miles per hour) is approximately 0.02 percent. Therefore, there is little stagnation in the project vicinity, especially during busy daytime traffic hours. Figure 2 illustrates wind patterns at Pomona monitoring station less than 2 miles east of the proposed project. Southern California frequently has temperature inversions that inhibit the dispersion of pollutants. Inversions may be either ground based or elevated. Ground based inversions, sometimes referred

7

to as radiation inversions, are most severe during clear, cold, early winter mornings. Under conditions of a ground-based inversion, very little mixing or turbulence occurs, and high concentrations of primary pollutants may occur local to major roadways. Elevated inversions can be generated by a variety of meteorological phenomena. Elevated inversions act as a lid or upper boundary and restrict vertical mixing. Below the elevated inversion, dispersion is not restricted. Mixing heights for elevated inversions are lower in the summer and more persistent. This low summer inversion puts a lid over the SCAB and is responsible for the high levels of ozone observed during summer months in the SCAB. The 30-year average temperature, from 1981 to 2010, using data obtained from the Western Region Climate Center’s Pomona meteorological station (#047050) shows the wintertime low of 41.5 degrees Fahrenheit in January. The summertime high is averaged at 90.6 degrees Fahrenheit in August. The rainfall season is from November to March with an annual average of 16.73 inches.

Ambient Concentration Data

Although the Pomona monitoring station is closer to the proposed project location; it does not monitor PM2.5 and PM10. Ambient PM2.5 and PM10 data were therefore obtained from the Azusa monitoring station, and were reviewed to establish the current ambient background level within the project limits and to help evaluate future localized pollutant concentrations as affected by the proposed projects. The Azusa monitoring station is located approximately 0.45 miles north of I-210; and is approximately 9.5 miles northwest of the proposed project. Figure 3 illustrates the proximity of this monitoring station to the freeway and to the proposed project. Tables 1 through 3 summarize traffic data for the portion of I-210 in close proximity to the Azusa monitoring station; and provide comparison to the existing and forecast traffic along the SR-71 within the project limits.

Table 1. Existing traffic data (2010)

Location ADT

% Truck Total Truck

I‐210 near Azusa monitoring station (605 Interchange, PM 36.41)

265,000 17,914 6.76

SR‐71 within the project limits (Post Mile 0.5 to 4.8)

69,000 – 92,000 4,920 – 9,421 7.13 – 10.24

Source: Caltrans Traffic Data Branch at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/saferesr/trafdata/index.htm

Table 2. Traffic forecast for the proposed project (Opening year in 2029)

ADT

% Truck Total Truck

Alternative 1 (No‐Build) 83,134 – 116,587 8,629 – 15,390 10.21 – 15.26

Alternative 2 112,986 – 170,837 13,859 – 26,431 12.27 – 16.48

Alternative 3 114,127 – 196,096 14,145 – 28,704 12.39 – 16.57

Alternative 4 113,694 – 196,015 13,965 – 33,806 12.28 – 17.25

Alternative 4A 112,729 – 195,800 13,946 – 33,751 12.37 – 17.24

Source: Traffic Analysis Final Report by CH2MHill, August 2012

8

Table 3. Traffic forecast for the proposed project (Build‐out year in 2050)

ADT

% Truck Total Truck

Alternative 1 (No‐Build) 93,888 – 131,669 9,745 – 17,381 10.21 – 15.26

Alternative 2 127,602 – 192,936 15,651 – 29,850 12.27 – 16.48

Alternative 3 128,891 – 221,463 15,974 – 32,417 12.39 – 16.57

Alternative 4 128,402 – 221,372 15,772 – 38,179 12.28 – 17.25

Alternative 4A 127,311 – 221,128 15,750 – 38,117 12.37 – 17.24


As presented in the tables above, the portion of SR-71 within the project limits, currently experiences volumes lower than the portion of I-210 near the Azusa monitoring station. However, with the implementation of the proposed project, this portion of SR-71 is projected to accommodate the level of traffic comparable to the portion of I-210 in the vicinity of the Azusa monitoring station. The Azusa station is located in an area with mixed commercial and residential uses. The land use pattern along the proposed project also includes residential, commercial, and light to restricted industrial based on the aerial and review of the MND/FONSI approved in 2002. Based on the comparison of the traffic volumes, land uses, and the proximity to the freeway, the ambient concentration data measured at the Azusa monitoring station are deemed representative for comparison to the proposed project. Table 4 summarizes ambient PM2.5 and PM10 data at the Azusa monitoring station while Figure 4 illustrates and compares these ambient concentrations to the current federal standards.

Table 4. Ambient PM2.5 and PM10 Monitoring Data at Azusa Station (in μg/m3)

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

PM2.5 24‐hour average 27 49 35 37 35 27

PM2.5 annual average 15.4 15.7 14.0 12.6 10.8 11.4

PM10 24‐hour average (First Max) 81 83 98 74 70 65

Source: EPA AirData at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ The ambient concentration data indicate that measurements at the Azusa station did not exceed the 1997 federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 65 g/m3 in the past six years; but exceeded the 2006 standard of 35 g/m3 twice in 2007 and 2009. The data, meanwhile, shows a generally decreasing trend of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations with time. The annual average PM2.5 concentrations at the Azusa station exceeded the federal annual PM2.5 standard of 15 g/m3 in 2006 and 2007, but no exceedances occurred since then. The annual average PM2.5 concentrations also exhibit a generally decreasing trend over the last six years. This downward trend in the ambient concentrations of PM2.5 at the Azusa station is consistent with the projections in the Final 2007 AQMP. The recently-released Draft 2012 AQMP also predicts a downward trend in PM2.5 emissions and anticipates attainment of the federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard by 2014 with all

9

feasible control programs. It should be noted, however, that the Draft 2012 AQMP is currently in review and subject to further revisions and approval by EPA. PM10 data presented in Table 4 shows that the monitored values for the 24-hour measurements did not exceed and were all well below the federal standard of 150 g/m3 in the past six years.

Traffic Conditions and Changes Due to the Project

Table 5 provides a snapshot of the current traffic conditions by summarizing daily average volumes, truck percentages, and speeds along the SR-71 within the project limits. It should be noted that the current year traffic conditions below have been obtained based on the SCAG model and by including the recently completed grade separation structure at the SR-71 intersection with Mission Boulevard.

Table 5. Daily traffic data for the current facility (2012)

Daily Volume % Truck Average Speeds, MPH

AM Mid Day PM Night

87,135 9.17 34 36 30 49


The project proposes to add one mixed flow lane and one HOV lane in each direction, converting the existing 4-lane expressway to an 8-lane freeway facility. The project will not only increase the capacity of the facility, but more importantly, upgrade the facility to the current standards while improving safety by eliminating at-grade intersections. It should be noted that the SR-71 within the project limits, between I-10 and SR-60, is the last remaining segment to be converted to freeway and to provide HOV lanes. Tables 6 and 7 below summarize future average daily traffic volumes, truck percentages, and speeds forecast along the SR-71 within the project limits. While traffic projections were conducted by CH2MHill in 7 to 10 individual segments within the project limits, the data are shown in the tables as averages over these segments. According to Tables 6 and 7, all the build alternatives (Alternatives 2 through 4A) are anticipated to result in improvements in vehicle speeds while accommodating more than 60 percent increase in the overall traffic volumes.

Table 6. Traffic forecast for opening year, 2029

Daily Volume Truck % Average Speeds, MPH

AM Mid Day PM Night

Alt 1 (No‐Build) 95,790 13.75 32 36 27 48

Alt 2 120,140 MF 32,849 HOV

14.92 48 MF 51 HOV

51 MF 54 HOV

42 MF 46 HOV

60 MF 61 HOV

Alt 3 123,332 MF 39,368 HOV

15.06 48 MF 50 HOV

52 MF 52 HOV

43 MF 45 HOV

61 MF 61 HOV

Alt 4 123,540 MF 38,888 HOV

14.99 48 MF 50 HOV

51 MF 53 HOV

43 MF 45 HOV

61 MF 61 HOV

Alt 4A 123,390 MF 38,921 HOV

15.01 48 MF 50 HOV

52 MF 53 HOV

42 MF 46 HOV

61 MF 61 HOV


10

Table 7. Traffic forecast for build‐out year, 2050

Daily Volume Truck % Average Speeds, MPH

AM Mid Day PM Night

Alt 1 (No‐Build) 108,181 13.75 30 34 25 47

Alt 2 135,682 MF 37,099 HOV

14.92 46 MF 49 HOV

49 MF 53 HOV

40 MF 44 HOV

60 MF 61 HOV

Alt 3 139,287 MF 44,461 HOV

15.06 46 MF 48 HOV

50 MF 50 HOV

40 MF 43 HOV

60 MF 60 HOV

Alt 4 139,520 MF 43,919 HOV

14.99 46 MF 48 HOV

50 MF 51 HOV

40 MF 43 HOV

60 MF 60 HOV

Alt 4A 139,351 MF 43,956 HOV

15.01 46 MF 48 HOV

50 MF 51 HOV

40 MF 43 HOV

60 MF 60 HOV


Traffic conditions along the SR-71 corridor and the surrounding areas were considered in estimating direct and re-entrained PM2.5 and PM10 emissions. Figure 5 illustrates the surrounding area and limits from where these traffic conditions were collected. The summary in Table 8 indicates that the implementation of the project alternatives results in increase in HOV traveling while reducing traveling on arterials and local streets.

Table 8. Summary of Vehicle Miles Traveled for SR‐71 Corridor and Surrounding Areas

FWY/Ramps HOV Expressway/ Principal Arterial

Minor Arterial Collectors

2012 Current 3,017,164 353,394 589,723 365,876 31,657

2029

Alt 1 3,326,221 591,568 677,438 490,052 44,950

Alt 2 3,536,244 728,723 496,029 436,309 38,459

Alt 3 3,543,257 726,595 495,417 437,409 38,413

Alt 4 3,544,397 723,361 488,435 451,395 38,870

Alt 4A 3,545,900 726,479 490,307 430,931 37,313

2050

Alt 1 3,756,497 668,092 765,071 553,445 50,765

Alt 2 3,993,688 822,989 560,195 492,749 43,434

Alt 3 4,001,608 820,586 559,503 493,992 43,383

Alt 4 4,002,895 816,934 551,618 509,787 43,899

Alt 4A 4,004,593 820,456 553,732 486,676 42,140


PM2.5 and PM10 Emissions

CT-EMFAC is utilized in estimating current and future project-level PM2.5 and PM10 emissions for the project alternatives. CT-EMFAC is designed to model criteria pollutants, including PM2.5 and PM10, using the ARB’s mobile source emissions inventory, EMFAC2007. EMFAC2007 is currently the latest version of emissions inventory made available by the EPA for use in

11

conformity analyses for projects in California. Since the project’s build-out year is 2050 while EMFAC2007 provides emissions inventory for years up to 2040, the project-level emissions for 2050 were estimated based on the emissions inventory for 2040. This approach is considered conservative because the future emissions are anticipated to decrease further beyond 2040. This Analysis also provides estimate of re-entrained road dust according to the latest EPA’s AP-42 method (dated January 2011, noted below) and based on the ARB’s default values of silt loading and average vehicle weight for the Los Angeles County portion of the SCAB.

. . Direct and re-entrained PM2.5 and PM10 emissions are estimated using the current and future traffic data obtained for 7 to 10 individual segments along the SR-71 corridor within the project limits. Another set of direct and re-entrained PM2.5 and PM10 emissions are estimated based on the current and future traffic data obtained for the surrounding area illustrated in Figure 5. A summary of direct and entrained PM2.5 and PM10 emissions data along the SR-71 corridor as well as for the surrounding area is presented in Table 9.

Table 9. Summary of the current and future PM10 and PM2.5 emissions estimate

Emissions in lb/day

Project Corridor Surrounding Area

PM10 PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5

Direct Re‐ent Direct Re‐ent Direct Re‐ent Direct Re‐ent

2012 Current 36.9 77.3 24.3 19.3 419.3 1,376.1 266.0 344.0

2029

Alt 1 38.9 83.9 25.1 21.0 465.5 1,706.9 288.4 426.7

Alt 2 52.4 108.6 30.8 27.1 462.7 1,621.0 279.5 405.3

Alt 3 52.3 108.2 30.8 27.1 463.1 1,623.5 279.7 405.9

Alt 4 52.1 108.0 30.7 27.0 463.7 1,644.3 280.1 411.1

Alt 4A 52.2 108.1 30.8 27.0 463.7 1,644.3 280.1 411.1

2050

Alt 1 48.4 94.8 30.1 23.7 569.9 1,927.7 339.2 481.9

Alt 2 63.0 122.6 35.5 30.6 568.2 1,830.7 333.4 457.7

Alt 3 62.8 122.2 35.4 30.5 566.6 1,833.5 328.8 458.4

Alt 4 62.8 122.0 35.4 30.5 566.4 1,857.0 328.3 464.3

Alt 4A 62.8 122.1 35.4 30.5 566.4 1,857.0 328.3 464.3


A summary of PM2.5 and PM10 emissions in Table 9 indicates that the implementation of the project alternatives would result in increase in PM2.5 and PM10 emissions along the SR-71 corridor when compared to the No-Build scenario or Alternative 1. This increase in emissions is attributed to more than 60 percent of increase in traffic volumes as presented in Tables 6 and 7. Traffic volumes are projected to increase when the existing at-grade intersections are eliminated and HOV lanes are added. It should be noted, however, that the speeds along the new freeway are anticipated to increase. Furthermore, combined emissions of direct and re-entrained along the SR-71 corridor are anticipated to increase only by about 20 percent while the traffic volumes

12

increase by 60 percent or more when compared to the No-Build. According to an operational analysis by CH2MHill, truck drivers currently experience approximately 463 vehicle hours of delay through the existing at-grade intersections within the project limits. The delay for truck drivers is anticipated to grow to approximately 955 and 1,221 vehicle-hours in 2029 and 2050, respectively. All project alternatives propose to remove at-grade intersections and these delays for truck drivers are anticipated to be eliminated. The effect of implementing the project alternatives is better captured in the emissions estimate from within the surrounding, but localized, areas illustrated in Figure 5. As summarized in Table 8, VMTs for the project alternatives are anticipated to increase by more than 2 percent in the surrounding area. In the mean time, combined direct and re-entrained PM10 emissions for all project alternatives are anticipated to decrease by more than 3 percent when compared to the No-Build or Alternative 1 in all years. The combined direct and re-entrained PM2.5 emissions are anticipated to decrease by more than 3.4 percent when compared to the No-Build or Alternative 1 in all years. Reduction in PM10 and PM2.5 emissions within the surrounding area is consistent across all project alternatives (Alternatives 2 through 4A) with varying degrees.

CONCLUSIONS

Transportation conformity is required under CAA Section 176(c) to ensure that federally supported highway and transit project activities are consistent with the purpose of the SIP. Conformity to the purpose of the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the relevant AAQS. As required by the March 10, 2006 final rule, this Analysis demonstrates that the projects meet the CAA conformity requirements to support state and local air quality goals with respect to potential localized air quality impacts as indicated below. Historical meteorology and climate data support that the regional and local meteorological and climatic conditions have been relatively consistent within the last 30 years and likely consistency is anticipated through the build-out year of 2059. In addition, no significant changes are anticipated in the current general terrain and geographic locations of the projects in relation to the coastal SCAB areas. Based on the traffic data presented, the existing ADT and truck volumes along the I-210 near the Azusa monitoring station are comparable to those along the future SR-71 within the project limits. Based on the recent data at the Azusa monitoring station, there is a generally declining trend of ambient PM2.5 concentrations. In addition, PM10 concentrations monitored at the Azusa station have all been well below the federal standard. Based on the Final 2007 AQMP and in the Draft 2012 AQMP, further decrease in PM2.5 and PM10 emissions is expected to continue in future years so that attainment of the federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard is anticipated by 2014 with feasible control programs. Federal regulations and the State’s Diesel Risk Reduction Plan require future diesel vehicles to have substantially cleaner engines and to use fuels with lower sulfur contents. Many federal and state regulations, such as CARB’s Truck and Bus Regulations, require that emissions from heavy duty trucks be reduced in future years. These federal and state requirements would help further

13

reduce PM2.5 and PM10 emissions in the future by essentially lowering per-vehicle emissions for each of the diesel vehicles. As summarized in Tables 6 and 7, overall average traffic volumes along the SR-71 project corridor are projected to increase by more than 60 percent with the implementation of the project alternatives. Also as indicated in Table 9, implementation of the project alternatives would increase overall VMTs by more than 2 percent within the surrounding area. Despite the increase in the overall VMTs, implementation of the project alternatives would result in lowering emissions of PM2.5 and PM10 in the surrounding area when compared to the No-Build. This decrease in the PM emissions in the surrounding area is anticipated because all project alternatives propose to eliminate at-grade intersections and reduce associated delays currently experienced by truck drivers; and affect traffic distribution in the surrounding area. The historical meteorology and climate data, ambient concentrations and their declining trends, and the Federal regulations and the State’s Plan and Regulations, support the assertion that the projects will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the relevant NAAQS. Activities of the project alternatives should, therefore, be considered consistent with the purpose of the SIP and it should be concurred that the project conforms to the requirements of the CAA.

Figures

GGG

G

GGGG

G

G

GGG

G

G

G

G

G

GG

G

G

GGGGG

GGG

G

nm

nmnm

nmnmnm

nmnm

nm

nmnm

nmnmnmnm

nmnm nmnm

nmnm

nm

!Ï

!Ï

!Ï

!Ï

!Ï

!Ï

!Ï

!Ï

!Ï

!Ï

CALIFORNIA STATEPOLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY

§̈¦10

PomonaPomona}57

DeVRY UNIVERSITYPOMONA CAMPUS

Frank G. BonelliFrank G. BonelliRegional ParkRegional Park

P u d d i n g s t o n eR e s e r v o i r

WildernessPark

WalnutCreek Park

V i a V e r d eV i a V e r d eP a r kP a r k

AMERICANHOSPITAL

§̈¦10

MARICCOLLEGE

WalnutWalnut

San DimasSan Dimas

Hum

ane W

ay

W Mi

ssion

Blvd

}60

}57

}60

POMONA AIRPOMONA AIRMONITORING STATIONMONITORING STATION_̂

LOS ANGELES COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTYSAN BERNARDINO COUNTY

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY

19

}71

nm

nm

K e n n e d yK e n n e d yP a r kP a r k

K e l l o gK e l l o gP a r kP a r k

L i t t l e L e a g u eL i t t l e L e a g u eF i e l d a n d P a r kF i e l d a n d P a r k

W a s h i n g t o nW a s h i n g t o nP a r k P o o lP a r k P o o l

K i w a n i sK i w a n i sP a r kP a r k

G a n e s h aG a n e s h aP a r kP a r k

P o m o n a J a y c e e sP o m o n a J a y c e e sC o m m u n i t y P a r kC o m m u n i t y P a r k

Phillips RanchPhillips Ranch

LANDMARK MEDICALCENTER

GARY DIALYSISCENTERL a d e r a S e r r aL a d e r a S e r r a

P a r kP a r k

Holt Ave

Valley

Blvd

Badillo S

t

Mission Blvd

Ga

rey

Ave

Tow

ne A

ve

Pomona Blvd

Covina Hills Rd

Ind

ian

Hill

Blv

d

Via Ver

de

W. Phillips Blvd

La Puente Rd

Orange Grove Ave

Sa

n A

nto

nio

Ave

Rio Ranc

ho R

d

Rio Rancho Rd

Re

ede

r A

ve

Kellogg Dr

Ran

ch R

d

Murchison Ave

Santa Clara Dr

Exit 2

4B

Fairplex

Dr

Temple Ave

W 2nd St

9th St

Mill

s A

ve

Chino Ave

Fairp

lex

Dr

Gan

esha

Blv

d

Ramp

1st St

Mill

s A

ve

Gan

esha

Blv

d

JULIANHOUSE

DIAMONDRANCH

COUNTRYHOUSE

PALOMINOHOUSE

SILVER SPRAYHOUSE

PRIMECAREHOME HEALTH

L MARRILLACGROUP HOME

PINNACLE HOMEHEALTH CARE

INTERLINKHEALTH CARE, INC

RAC HEALTH CARE SERVICES, INC.

AMERICAN QUALITYHOME CARE, INC

AS'LIEF HOMEHEALTH AGENCY, INC

POMONA VISTAALZHEIMER'S CENTER

ESPECIALLY YOURS, HOME HEALTH, INC

CHINO VALLEYREHABILITATION CENTER

COMMUNITY HEALTHPROJECTS - POMONA

COVENANT CARE NURSINGCENTER - POMONA

DIALYSIS & TRANSPLANT CENTER OF POMONA VALLEY

DIAL 4 CARE HOME HEALTH SERVICES, INC - WALNUT

CASHA RESOURCE HOME HEALTH SERVICES, INC - PARENT

PRIMECARE HOME HEALTH



STAFF BUILDERS SERVICES, INC. - COVINA

CASA COLINA CHILDREN'S SERVICES CENTERCASA COLINA HOSPITAL FOR REHAB MEDICINE




San J

ose C

reek

Diamond Bar Creek

San

Ant o

nio C

reek

San J

ose C

reek

Diamond Bar Creek


PRIMECARE HOME HEALTHA PLUS HOME HEALTH SPECIALISTAMERICAN QUALITY HOME CARE, INC


COORDINATED HOME HEALTH SERVICES, INC

EAST VALLEYCOMMUNITY

HEALTH CENTER INC.

PALOMARES REHABILITATIONAND NURSING CENTER

PRIMECARE HOME HEALTHA PLUS HOME HEALTH SPECIALIST

PRIMARY RELIANCEENCINAS HOUSE

AMERICAN QUALITY HOME CARE, INC


COORDINATED HOME HEALTH SERVICES, INC


VNA AND HOSPICE OF POMONA/SAN BERNARDINO, INC.VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION SUPPORT SERVICES, INC.

WELLNESS HOME HEALTHCARE, INC.

LANTERMANDEVELOPMENTALCENTER


COUNTRY OAKS CARECENTER - POMONA

HERITAGE HOMEHEALTH SERVICES, INC

POMONA VALLEY HOSPITALMEDICAL CENTER

LAUREL PARK A CENTEROF EFFECTIVE LIVING

OLIVE VISTA, A CENTERFOR PROBLEMS OF LIVING

PLANNED PARENTHOOD/WORLDPOPULATION LA-POMONA



8

315

17102

7

423

5

111

20

2213 21

916

14

1812

246

Diamond BarDiamond Bar

IndustryIndustry

Chino HillsChino Hills

0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.20.15Miles

LEGENDSchoolsnm1, Alcott Elementary

nm2, Decker Elementary

nm3, Diamond Point Elementary

nm4, Diamond Ranch High

nm5, Fremont Middle

nm6, Ganesha Senior High

nm7, Garey Senior High

nm8, Golden Springs Elementary

nm9, Kellogg Polytechnic Elementary

nm10, Lexington Elementary

nm11, Madison Elementary

nm12, Marshall (John) Middle

nm13, Mendoza Elementary

nm14, Park West High (Cont.)

nm15, Philadelphia Elementary

nm16, Pomona Alternative (Pas)

nm17, Ranch Hills Elementary

nm18, Roosevelt Elementary

nm19, Simons Middle

nm20, Vejar Elementary

nm21, Washington Elementary

nm22, Westmont Elementary

nm23, International Polytechnic High

nm24, Arroyo Elementary

!ÏParksG Healthcare Facilities

HighwaysProposed Project on Route 71

LanduseSingle Family ResidentialMulti-Family ResidentialOther ResidentialGeneral OfficeCommercial and ServicesFacilities

EducationMilitary InstallationsIndustrialTransportation, Communications, and UtilitiesMixed Commercial and IndustrialMixed UrbanOpen Space and RecreationAgricultureVacantWaterUnder ConstructionUndevelopableUnknown

FIGURE 1. SENSITIVE RECEPTOR MAPSTATE ROUTE 71 FROM INTERSTATE 10 TO STATE ROUTE 60 California Department of Transportation District 7, Los Angeles

I

WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software

WIND ROSE PLOT:

poma

COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:

MODELER:

DATE:

1/28/2009

PROJECT NO.:

NORTH

SOUTH

WEST EAST

3%

6%

9%

12%

15%

WIND SPEED(m/s)

>= 11.0

6.0 - 11.0

4.0 - 6.0

2.0 - 4.0

0.5 - 2.0

0.1 - 0.5

Calms: 0.02%

TOTAL COUNT:

25892 hrs.

CALM WINDS:

0.02%

DATA PERIOD:

2005-2007Jan 1 - Dec 3100:00 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED:

1.18 m/s

DISPLAY:

Wind SpeedDirection (blowing from)

s129668

Typewritten Text

Caltrans, District 7

s129668

Typewritten Text

Figure 2

Figure 3. Location of Air Monitoring Station and Project Limits

End Project

Begin Project

Azusa Monitoring Station

Pomona Monitoring Station

Figure 4. Ambient PM2.5 and PM10 Data at Azusa Monitoring Station

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

PM2.5 24‐hour average

PM2.5 annual average

PM10 24‐hour average (First Max)

24‐Hour PM2.5 Standard

Annual PM2.5 Standard

24‐Hour PM10 Standard

Figure 5. Limits of surrounding area

air quality conformity analysis - pomona · 2012. 12. 19. · air quality conformity analysis state...

Documents