Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration
City of Fresno Regional
Wastewater Reclamation Facility
Waste Gas Flare and Facility
Modifications Project
May 25, 2021
Prepared for:
City of Fresno
Department of Public Utilities
2101 G Street, Bldg. A
Fresno, CA 93706
Prepared by:
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
7502 N. Colonial, Suite 101
Fresno, CA 93711
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
i
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1.1
1.1 PROJECT TITLE ............................................................................................... 1.1
1.2 LEAD AGENCY ................................................................................................. 1.1
1.3 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT ............................................................................... 1.1
1.4 PURPOSE ......................................................................................................... 1.1
1.5 PROJECT LOCATION ...................................................................................... 1.2
1.6 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ......................................................................... 1.2
1.7 SUMMARY OF PROJECT................................................................................. 1.2
1.8 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING .............................................. 1.2
1.9 SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING ................................................. 1.2
1.10 CEQA AND PUBLIC AND AGENCY REVIEW .................................................. 1.3
1.11 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS ....................................................... 1.3
1.12 SCOPE OF THIS INITIAL STUDY ..................................................................... 1.4
1.13 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION .......................................................................... 1.4
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................ 2.1
2.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW ..................................................................................... 2.1
2.1.1 RWRF Background ............................................................................ 2.9
2.1.2 Waste Gas Flare................................................................................ 2.9
2.2 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 2.11
2.2.1 Schedule ......................................................................................... 2.11
2.2.2 Site Clearing .................................................................................... 2.12
2.2.3 Grading ............................................................................................ 2.12
2.2.4 Construction Equipment and Workers ............................................. 2.12
2.2.1 Access and Staging ......................................................................... 2.13
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ..... 3.1
3.1 AESTHETICS .................................................................................................... 3.3
3.1.1 Environmental Setting ....................................................................... 3.3
3.1.2 Methodology ...................................................................................... 3.4
3.1.3 Environmental Impact Analysis ......................................................... 3.4 3 .2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ............................................ 3.7
3.2.1 Environmental Setting ....................................................................... 3.7
3.2.2 Methodology ...................................................................................... 3.7
3.2.3 Environmental Impact Analysis ......................................................... 3.8
3.3 AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................. 3.11
3.3.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................... 3.11
3.3.2 Methodology .................................................................................... 3.19
3.3.3 Environmental Impact Analysis ....................................................... 3.19
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................... 3.33
3.4.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................... 3.33
3.4.2 Methodology .................................................................................... 3.34
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
ii
3.4.3 Environmental Impact Analysis ....................................................... 3.35
3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................. 3.41
3.5.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................... 3.41
3.5.2 Methodology .................................................................................... 3.42
3.5.3 Environmental Impact Setting .......................................................... 3.42
3.6 ENERGY ......................................................................................................... 3.45
3.6.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................... 3.45
3.6.2 Methodology .................................................................................... 3.46
3.6.3 Environmental Impact Analysis ....................................................... 3.46
3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .................................................................................. 3.49
3.7.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................... 3.49
3.7.2 Methodology .................................................................................... 3.50
3.7.3 Environmental Impact Analysis ....................................................... 3.50
3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS ...................................................................................... 3.57
3.8.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................... 3.57
3.8.2 Thresholds ....................................................................................... 3.60
3.8.3 Methodology .................................................................................... 3.60
3.8.4 Environmental Impact Analysis ....................................................... 3.60
3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .................................................. 3.67
3.9.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................... 3.67
3.9.2 Methodology .................................................................................... 3.68
3.9.3 Environmental Impact Analysis ....................................................... 3.69
3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ........................................................... 3.75
3.10.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................... 3.75
3.10.2 Methodology .................................................................................... 3.76
3.10.3 Environmental Impact Analysis ....................................................... 3.76
3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING ........................................................................... 3.83
3.11.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................... 3.83
3.11.2 Methodology .................................................................................... 3.83 3 .11.3 Environmental Impact Analysis ....................................................... 3.83
3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES ................................................................................. 3.85
3.12.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................... 3.85
3.12.2 Methodology .................................................................................... 3.85
3.12.3 Environmental Impact Analysis ....................................................... 3.85
3.13 NOISE ............................................................................................................. 3.87
3.13.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................... 3.87
3.13.1 Methodology .................................................................................... 3.91
3.13.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ....................................................... 3.91
3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING ....................................................................... 3.97
3.14.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................... 3.97
3.14.2 Methodology .................................................................................... 3.97
3.14.3 Environmental Impact Analysis ....................................................... 3.97
3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES ........................................................................................ 3.99
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
iii
3.15.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................... 3.99
3.15.2 Methodology .................................................................................. 3.100
3.15.3 Environmental Impact Analysis ..................................................... 3.100
3.16 RECREATION ............................................................................................... 3.103
3.16.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................... 3.103
3.16.2 Methodology .................................................................................. 3.103
3.16.3 Environmental Impact Analysis ..................................................... 3.103
3.17 TRANSPORTATION ..................................................................................... 3.105
3.17.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................... 3.105
3.17.2 Methodology .................................................................................. 3.105
3.17.3 Environmental Impact Analysis ..................................................... 3.106
3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................. 3.111
3.18.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................... 3.111
3.18.2 Methodology .................................................................................. 3.111
3.18.3 Environmental Impact Analysis ..................................................... 3.112
3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .......................................................... 3.115
3.19.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................... 3.115
3.19.2 Methodology .................................................................................. 3.116
3.19.3 Environmental Impact Analysis ..................................................... 3.116
3.20 WILDFIRE ..................................................................................................... 3.121
3.20.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................... 3.121
3.20.2 Methodology .................................................................................. 3.121
3.20.3 Environmental Impact Analysis ..................................................... 3.122
3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ............................................. 3.125
4.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 4.1
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ..................................................................................... 5.1
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.2-1 Construction Schedule ............................................................................ 2.11 Table 2.2-2 Construction Equipment .......................................................................... 2.12 Table 3.3-1: California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards .......................... 3.12 Table 3.3-2: SJVAB Area Designations for State and National Ambient Air Quality ........................................................................................................... 3.14 Table 3.3-3: SJVAPCD Air Quality CEQA Thresholds of Significance ....................... 3.18 Table 3.3-4: Annual Construction Emissions .............................................................. 3.21 Table 3.3-5: Pre-Project Potential to Emit (PE1) (tons per year) ................................ 3.23 Table 3.3-6: Post-Project PTE (PE2) (tons per year) ................................................. 3.23 Table 3.3-7: Post-Project PTE (PE2) (tons per year) ................................................. 3.24 Table 3.3-8: Facility-Wide Stationary Source Pre-Project Potential to Emit (SSPE1)/New Source Review Analysis ........................................................ 3.25 Table 3.3-9: Facility-Wide Stationary Source Post-Project Potential to Emit (SSPE2)/New Source Review Analysis ........................................................ 3.26
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
iv
Table 3.8-1: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions.............................................. 3.61 Table 3.8-2: Pre-Project Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................ 3.61 Table 3.8-3: Post-Project Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................... 3.62 Table 3.13-1: Definition of Sound Measurement ........................................................ 3.88 Table 3.13-2: Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels ....................................................... 3.89 Table 3.13-3: Summary of Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model at Nearest Sensitive Receptor ............................ 3.92
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Regional Location Map ................................................................................. 2.3 Figure 2: Local Vicinity Map ......................................................................................... 2.5 Figure 3: Site Plan ........................................................................................................ 2.7
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS CALEEMOD
RESULTS, PRIORITIZATION, AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT AND
PERMIT TO OPERATE APPLICATION .......................................................... A-1 APPENDIX B BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................................................... B-1 APPENDIX C CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................. C-1
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Introduction
1.1 1.0 INTRODUCTION
The City of Fresno (City) is proposing to construct and operate two new low emissions flares on 0.13-acres within the existing Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF) (proposed project). The existing waste gas flare at the RWRF would be retained to provide redundant backup capabilities to meet operational needs of the facility and the proposed new flares would be constructed adjacent to this existing flare unit and would serve as the primary flares for the RWRF. The new waste gas flares would be sized and operated to burn all excess waste gas to a 99 percent destruct coefficient and will meet or exceed permit requirements established by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). Additional modifications would be implemented to existing permitted equipment.
1.1 PROJECT TITLE
Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility Waste Gas Flare Project
1.2 LEAD AGENCY
City of Fresno
Department of Public Utilities
2101 G Street, Bldg. A
Fresno, CA 93706
1.3 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT
Matthew L. Bullis, P.E.
Department of Public Utilities
Phone: (559)621-1632
Email: [email protected]
1.4 PURPOSE
The purpose of the proposed project is to allow for construction and operation of two new waste gas flares at the Fresno-Clovis RWRF (project site) to meet the operational demand at the facility. The addition of the two flares would require some modifications to existing permitted equipment.
This Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) has been prepared to evaluate the proposed project for potential environmental effects in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City of Fresno (City) is the Lead Agency under CEQA and has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Introduction
1.2 project that may have a significant effect on the environment. This ISMND has been prepared in anticipation of determining that all potentially significant impacts from implementing the proposed project can be mitigated to less than significant levels. This document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21000 et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.
1.5 PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed project is located in the City of Fresno within the Fresno-Clovis RWRF.
The address for the Fresno-Clovis RWRF is 5607 West Jensen Avenue, Fresno, California 93706.
1.6 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The Fresno-Clovis RWRF consists of an existing wastewater reclamation facility with industrial operations to treat and process wastewater generated within the City. The RWRF is approximately 3,000 acres with a variety of administrative buildings, treatment ponds, and associated appurtenances and structures necessary to collect, treat, and dispose of influent that is conveyed to the facility.
1.7 SUMMARY OF PROJECT
The proposed project would involve the construction and operation of two new waste gas flares on 0.13-acres of land within the existing RWRF.
1.8 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING
The Fresno-Clovis RWRF has a City of Fresno General Plan land use designation of “Public Facility – Wastewater Treatment Facility” (City of Fresno 2017) and a City of Fresno zoning designation of “PI – Public and Institutional – Public and Institutional” (City of Fresno 2020a).
1.9 SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
The project site is located in the far southwestern-most portion of the City, within the existing RWRF which is surrounded on all sides by agricultural lands. The nearest residential unit to the project site is located approximately 2,600 feet to the north on S Polk Avenue (i.e. approximately 1,600 feet from the northern-most edge of the RWRF).
Roadways surrounding the project site include W Jensen Avenue, S Cornelia Avenue, W North Avenue, and S Chateau Fresno Avenue.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Introduction
1.3 1.10 CEQA AND PUBLIC AND AGENCY REVIEW
CEQA requires that project proponents disclose the significant impacts to the environment from proposed development projects. The intent of CEQA is to foster good planning and to consider environmental issues during the planning process. The City is the Lead Agency under CEQA for the preparation of this ISMND. CEQA Guidelines (Section 21067) define the Lead Agency as: “the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment.” Approval of the proposed project is considered a public agency discretionary action, and therefore is subject to compliance with CEQA. The City has directed the preparation of an analysis to comply with CEQA.
Stantec has prepared this document at the direction of the City. The purpose of this document is to disclose the environmental consequences of implementing the proposed project to decision-makers and the public. The public, City residents, and other local and state resource agencies will be given the opportunity to review and comment on this document during a 20-day public-review period. Comments received during the review period will be considered by the City prior to certification of this ISMND and project approval.
If you wish to send written comments (including via e-mail), they must be received by 5 p.m. on the closing day. Written comments should be addressed to:
Matthew L. Bullis, P.E.
Department of Public Utilities
2101 G Street, Bldg. A
Fresno, CA 93706
Phone: (559) 621-1632
Email: [email protected]
Additional information on the proposed project, including the ISMND and supporting documents may be obtained from the City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities located at 2101 G Street, Bldg. A, Fresno, CA, 93706. Please contact Matthew Bullis at (559) 621-5122 for more information.
1.11 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS
This ISMND would be used by the City as the Lead Agency to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. For the proposed project to be implemented, a series of actions and approvals would be required from multiple agencies. Anticipated project approvals/actions would include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration: City of Fresno
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Introduction
1.4 • Authority to Construct/Permit to Operate from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
Other ministerial approvals such as building permits and grading permits are also anticipated.
Additionally, all work related to improvements and project grading would be subject to the City of Fresno Municipal Code, including the Zoning Ordinance, Building Code, and Fire Code.
1.12 SCOPE OF THIS INITIAL STUDY
As the Lead Agency under CEQA, the City is responsible for compliance with the environmental review process prescribed by the CEQA Guidelines. This ISMND focuses on the environmental issues identified as potentially significant in the CEQA checklist and by the CEQA Guidelines. This ISMND evaluates the potentially significant effects on the environment and identifies mitigation measures to mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur. A complete Project Description is included in Section 2.0. Evaluations of the CEQA Appendix G checklist questions are analyzed in Section 3.0 and references are included at the end of each resource section. The following technical studies were conducted and/or reviewed in preparing this ISMND: air quality modeling outputs, biological resources assessment, cultural resources study, traffic impact study, and noise modeling. These studies/supporting data are included as appendices to this ISMND and referred to where appropriate throughout this document.
1.13 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
This Draft ISMND is organized as follows:
Section 1.0: Introduction. This section introduces the proposed project and describes the purpose and organization of this document.
Section 2.0: Project Description. This section describes the purpose and need for the proposed project, identifies the project objectives, and provides a detailed description of the proposed project.
Section 3.0: Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation. This section presents an analysis of the range of environmental issues identified in the CEQA Environmental Checklist and determines whether the proposed project would result in no impact, a less than significant impact, a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated, or a potentially significant impact for each topic. If impacts are determined to be potentially significant after incorporation of applicable mitigation measures, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required. For this proposed project,
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Introduction
1.5 however, mitigation measures have been incorporated, where needed, that would reduce all potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level.
Section 4.0: References. This section lists the references used in preparing this ISMND.
Section 5.0: List of Preparers. This section identifies the report preparers.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Introduction
1.6 This page intentionally left blank.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Description
2.1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The proposed project is located in the City of Fresno (City) at the Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF) (see Figure 1). The City currently operates the Fresno- Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF) which treats over 68 million gallons of raw sewage daily. As a part of ongoing operations at the RWRF, digester gas, which contains methane gas as a byproduct of the biological waste decomposition, is generated at an approximate average rate of 1,584,000 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) per day. Some of the digester gas is burned beneficially in the RWRF’s hot water boiler used to heat the Facility’s digesters. Any digester gas that does not go to the facility’s hot water boiler is currently burned onsite using a single waste gas flare (see Figure 2). To increase the RWRF’s capacity as well as to improve the redundancy of the digester gas system, the City is proposing to construct and operate two new low emissions flares within the existing RWRF (proposed project). The existing waste gas flare at the RWRF would be retained to provide redundant backup capabilities to meet operational needs of the facility and the proposed new flares would be constructed adjacent to this existing flare unit and would serve as the primary flares for the RWRF (see Figure 3). The new waste gas flares would be sized and operated to burn all excess waste gas to a 99 percent destruct coefficient and will meet or exceed permit requirements established by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD).
In addition to permitting the two new waste gas flares, the proposed permitting action with the SJVAPCD would also include revising the combined emission limits of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) for emission units 9, 22, and 44 [Flare Unit 9, a compressor engine (Unit 22), and a trash pump engine (Unit 44)], respectively.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Description
2.2 This page intentionally left blank.
Project Site
State Hwy 99
State Rte 180
State Rte 99
State
Rte
41 V:\1857\Active\185705162\mxd\fig_1_regional_location.mxd Revised: 2020-12-22 By: KAEJOHNSON 1 City of Fresno Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility - Waste Gas Flare Project
Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration
Fresno, California
Regional Location Map
Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data.
Notes
1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California IV FIPS 0404 Feet
Figure No.
Title
Project Location
Client/Project
(At original document size of 8.5x11)
1:150,000 (
$$¯
Legend
Project Site
City of Fresno
0 1 2
Miles
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Description
2.4 This page intentionally left blank.
V:\1857\Active\185705162\mxd\fig_2_local_vicinity_map.mxd Revised: 2020-12-22 By: KAEJOHNSON 2 City of Fresno Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility - Waste Gas Flare Project
Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration
Fresno, California
Local Vicinity Map
Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data.
Notes
1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California IV FIPS 0404 Feet
Figure No.
Title
Project Location
Client/Project
(At original document size of 8.5x11)
1:15,000 (
$$¯
Legend
Project Site
0 600 1,200
Feet
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Description
2.6 This page intentionally left blank.
3 City of Fresno Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility - Waste Gas Flare Project
Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration
Fresno, California
Site Plan
Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data.
Project Location
Client/Project
Figure No.
T
itle
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Description
2.8 This page intentionally left blank.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Description
2.9 2.1.1 RWRF Background
The City of Fresno describes the RWRF as a biological, secondary level treatment plant, treating about 68 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater. The RWRF produces water of secondary treatment level that meets Title 22 California Code of Regulations and can be used to irrigate fields with alfalfa, silage corn, Sudangrass and other fiber crops not used for human consumption. Approximately 12-15 percent of the total acre-feet of wastewater that is treated at the RWRF goes for direct reuse to farmers leasing land within the RWRF boundaries or to neighboring farmers. The rest is sent to 1,700 acres of ponds to percolate into the ground. Up to 5 million gallons of wastewater per day is also treated to disinfected tertiary recycled water standards as defined by Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. This recycled water can be used for farming or landscape irrigation.
2.1.2 Waste Gas Flare
Flare gas is a byproduct of the digester gas that is produced during the treatment process. This gas can be used in different ways, including combustion of the gas to produce electricity, burning the gas in a boiler to heat digesters, or flare it through a waste gas flare process. This process is described in further detail below.
Waste Gas Flare Components
The new flares would consist of a John Zink, ZULE Ultra-Low Emission Flare system (or equivalent system), which would be modified as necessary to meet the specified requirements of the facility. The major components of this system include the following:
• Gas Train
• Combustion Air and Blowers
• Flare stacks
• Burner Equipment
• Control Panel/Electrical Equipment/Appurtenances
Each of these components is described in further detail below.
Gas Train
Digester gas from the treatment process would be conveyed to the flare gas system through a natural gas pilot line which would be equipped with isolation valves, pressure regulators, pressure gauges, and explosion proof solenoid valves. This would then feed into the gas train system which would include a flame arrester, a pneumatic actuated
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Description
2.10 fail-closed emergency shutoff valve, pneumatic modulating flow control valve, and thermal-mass type flow meter. All gas fed into the system would be closely monitored and the emergency shut off initiated if temperatures reach a certain pre-determined level.
Combustion Air and Blowers
The combustion air and blowers would be appropriately sized to allow for maximum air velocity through the damper and would include stainless steel screens on the outside of the unit to prevent debris from being sucked into the burner area. Temperatures within the flare stacks would be controlled using the position of the dampers (i.e. to allow more or less air into the flare stack).
Flare Stacks
The flare stacks would consist of cylindrical carbon steel systems where the flare burn off process would occur. Each flare stack would be approximately 40 feet in height and would sit on concrete pads which would be approximately 50 feet by 18 feet. The height of the new flares would be comparable to the existing flare, which would be retained for redundancy. There would be no visible flame or smoke from the top of the flare. Flare stack and associated piping would be made of one quarter inch thick carbon steel with a commercial blast surface. An access platform which would surround 270 degrees of the flare stack would be installed at an elevation to provide operators easy access to sample ports. Additionally, a 40-foot ladder with a rail and fall protection would be installed on each of the flare stacks.
Air dampers installed on the flare stacks would ensure the operating temperatures in the flare stacks are maintained (i.e. not fluctuating rapidly or reaching to high of temperatures). Each flare stack would also include eight thermocouples which would detect and monitor high temperatures and deploy the emergency shutoff valve if temperatures reach a pre-determined temperature threshold.
Burner Equipment
The burner equipment would be located within the flare stacks and would include an ignition control system and flame detection monitoring system including self-checking ultraviolet scanners, ignition transformer, ignition electrode, the main flare burner, the pilot burner, and all piping and supports inside the flare.
Electrical Building/Control Panel/Electrical Equipment/Appurtenances A new electrical building would be constructed. The proposed building materials have not been finalized but may include concrete masonry units or similar building material.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Description
2.11 The control panel, electrical equipment and associated appurtenances would include an electrical and control building with lighting, a motor control center (MCC) and variable frequency drives (VFDs) for blowers, a new circuit breaker and auxiliary components, a pad-mounted transformer (to be located outside the building on an external concrete pad) and conduit and wire.
New equipment in for the project would be powered from the existing 12.47 kV switchgear in the existing dewatering building. The control panel for the existing flare would be relocated into the new building, and all connections would be reestablished from the new panel location, including control connections to motor starters and instrument and control connection to flare auxiliary components.
Existing Facility Modifications
As described above, the City would make modifications to existing permitted units: Flare (Unit 9), a compressor engine (Unit 22), and a trash pump engine (Unit 44)]. These modifications would entail equipment and/or hours of use adjustments to reduce the emissions of NOx.
2.2 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
This section discusses the construction activities associated with the proposed project.
2.2.1 Schedule
Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to occur over 10 months from July 1, 2022 to May 4, 2023, however the exact schedule may change based on variables such as weather or other unforeseen conditions. Construction activities would occur over several phases, with the breakdown on timing for each phase shown in Table 2.2-1 below.
Table 2.2-1 Construction Schedule
Construction Phase Start Date End Date
Site Preparation/Grading 7/1/2022 09/22/2022
Flare Construction 9/23/2022 4/27/2023
Paving 4/28/2023 5/4/2023
All construction activities would occur during the hours between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM, consistent with the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 10, Article 1, Section 10-109- Exemptions.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Description
2.12 2.2.2 Site Clearing
Site clearing, grubbing, and stripping would include removal of natural obstructions and existing foundations, fences, and other objectionable materials. Removal of soil material containing sod, grass, or other vegetation to depth of 6 inches would occur from areas to receive fill or pavement and from area within 5 feet outside foundation walls. One tree would be removed from the project area.
2.2.3 Grading
After clearing and excavation are completed, the entire area would be scarified to a depth of 6 inches and until surface is free of ruts, hummocks, and other features that would prevent uniform compaction by equipment to be used. Total cut and fill volumes would be 410 and 200 cubic yards, respectively, with approximately 210 cubic yards of soil exported offsite.
2.2.4 Stormwater Control
The Project would not disturb an acre or more of land, therefore it would not be required to obtain a permit for construction to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NDPES). Nevertheless, the Department of Public Utilities will include Best Management Practices (BMPs) for grading and erosion control on its construction plans that its selected contractor will be required to implement. BMPs will include temporary and permanent soil stabilization, temporary sediment control, tracking controls, wind erosion controls, and waste management and materials pollution control.
2.2.5 Construction Equipment and Workers
Typical construction that would be required is summarized in Table 2.2-2 below. An estimated daily peak of 15 personnel would be involved in the construction of the proposed project.
Table 2.2-2 Construction Equipment
Phase Construction Equipment Number Hours Per Day
Site Preparation/Grading Graders 1 8
Plate Compactors 1 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8
Flare Construction Cranes 1 2
Forklifts 1 6
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 6
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 4 6
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Description
2.13 Phase Construction Equipment Number Hours Per Day Pavers 1 7
Rollers 1 7
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7
2.2.1 Access and Staging
Access to the project site would occur from W. Jensen Avenue to the entrance at the RWRF. All staging of equipment, materials, and personnel would occur within the RWRF property line.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Description
2.14 This page intentionally left blank.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.1 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that requires mitigation to reduce the impact from “Potentially Significant” to “Less Than Significant” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards/Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation/Traffic Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities/ Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Section 3.0, Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation presents the environmental checklist form found in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The checklist form is used to describe the impacts of the proposed project. A discussion follows each environmental issue identified in the checklist. Included in each discussion are project-specific mitigation measures recommended as appropriate. For this checklist, the following designations are used:
Potentially Significant Impact: An impact that could be significant and for which mitigation has not been identified. If any potentially significant impacts are identified, an EIR must be prepared instead of an ISMND.
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: This designation applies when applicable and feasible mitigation measures previously identified in prior applicable EIRs or in the General Plan EIR have reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact” and, pursuant to Section 21155.2 of the PRC, those measures are incorporated into the ISMND. This designation also applies when the incorporation of new project-specific mitigation measures not previously identified in prior applicable EIRs or in the General Plan EIR has reduced an effect from a “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.”
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.2 Less Than Significant Impact: Any impact that would not be considered significant under CEQA, relative to existing standards.
No Impact: The proposed project would not have any impact. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a Lead Agency cites following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.3 3.1 AESTHETICS
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
State scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings? (Public
views are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project
is in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
3.1.1 Environmental Setting
Regional Visual Character
The City is generally comprised of suburbs, industrial areas, rural residential, and agricultural lands, with more development and built areas occurring towards the City’s center and Downtown areas and rural and agricultural areas occurring towards the outer portions of the City. The Downtown Fresno area is the urban core of the city, containing high‐rise buildings and a diversity of land uses. Substantial sources of existing light and glare occur within the City from streetlights, parking lot lights, and interior and exterior building lights.
The City’s General Plan EIR states, “a scenic vista is viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued landscape for the public’s benefit. It is usually viewed from some distance away. Aesthetic components of a scenic vista include (1) scenic quality; (2) sensitivity level; and (3) view access. A scenic vista can be impacted in two ways: a development project can have visual impacts by either directly diminishing the scenic quality of the vista or by blocking the view corridors or “vista” of the scenic resource.
Important factors in determining whether a proposed project would block scenic vistas include the project’s proposed height, mass, and location relative to surrounding land uses and travel corridors. Typical scenic vistas are locations where views of rivers, hillsides, and open space areas are accessible from public vantage points.”
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.4 The approved General Plan does not identify or designate scenic vistas within the City of Fresno. There are no officially designated state scenic highways within the City or near the project site. However, portions of State Route (SR) 180 and 168 are considered eligible highways within the City. The nearest officially designated state scenic highway is located more than 30 miles northeast of the City within Madera County (City of Fresno 2020b).
Project Site Visual Character
The proposed project site is located in the far southwestern portion of the City and is surrounded on all sides by agricultural lands and two-lane roadways. The RWRF itself consists of facilities and structures to support typical wastewater treatment operations.
The RWRF is surrounded by a fence and includes limited landscaped vegetation and operational lighting on the exterior and interior of the structures within the RWRF. The new waste gas flares would be located in a central portion of the RWRF, adjacent to digesters 1 and 3.
3.1.2 Methodology
Analysis of the project’s visual impacts is based on an evaluation of the changes to the existing visual resources that would result from implementation of the proposed project.
In determining the extent and implications of the visual changes, consideration was given to: the existing visual quality of the affected environment; specific changes in the visual character and quality of the affected environment; the extent to which the affected environment contains places or features that provide unique visual experiences or that have been designated in plans and policies for protection or special consideration; and the sensitivity of viewers and their activities and the extent to which these activities are related to the aesthetic qualities affected by the project.
3.1.3 Environmental Impact Analysis
This section discusses potential impacts on aesthetics associated with the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where necessary.
Impact AES-1 Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Impact Analysis
The proposed project would be constructed and operated entirely within the existing RWRF facility which does not contain any scenic vistas or important visual resources. In addition, there are no scenic vistas or important visual resources within the surrounding area. Views of the existing and proposed new flares are minimized because of the location being set back within the facility and intervening facility buildings/infrastructure.
The new waste gas flares would be constructed adjacent to the existing digester and would blend with the existing visual environment in the area. Further, the nearest
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.5 sensitive receptor to the RWRF is located over 1,600 feet from the northern-most edge of the RWRF and would no experience any changes in views from the construction or operation of the RWRF. Therefore, there would be no impact related to scenic vistas.
The proposed project would not have an adverse effect on a scenic vista. The proposed project would have no impact.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
No Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact AES-2 S ubstantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? Impact Analysis
As discussed in Section 3.1.1, Environmental Setting, above, there are no officially designated state scenic highways within the City. Additionally, SR 180 and 168 which are considered eligible state-scenic highways are located over two miles and 10 miles, respectively from the RWRF and are not visible from the RWRF.
One tree would be removed from the project area, however, there are several other trees in the surrounding area and the removal of the tree would not result in a substantial degradation of the existing visual character of the site because of the highly industrial nature of the entirety of the RWRF. It should be noted that these trees are for landscaping purposes only and were not planted to be a screen for the existing flare.
Because there are no State scenic highways near the project site, there would be no impact related to damage of scenic resources within a state scenic highway.
Level of Significance
No Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact AES-3 S ubstantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
Impact Analysis
As discussed under AES-1 above, the proposed project would be constructed and operated entirely within the existing RWRF which consists of a highly developed, industrial setting used for wastewater treatment operations. The new gas flares would be constructed adjacent to digesters 1 and 2 and the existing waste gas flare and would
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.6 blend with the existing visual character of the area (i.e. an industrial area). Each flare stack would be approximately 40 feet in height and would sit on concrete pads which would be approximately 50 feet by 18 feet, which is comparable in height to the existing flare. There would be no visible flame or smoke from the top of the flare. Additionally, although one tree would be removed from the project area, there are several other trees in the surrounding area and the removal of the tree would not result in a substantial degradation of the existing visual character of the site because of the highly industrial nature of the entirety of the RWRF. As noted previously, these trees were planted for landscaping purposes only and were not designed to serve as a screen for the existing flare or related equipment.
The proposed project would result in no impact related to substantial degradation of the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings.
Level of Significance
No Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact AES-4 Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Impact Analysis
The RWRF currently contains operational lighting on the exterior of the buildings and facilities within the RWRF to support both day and nighttime operations. The proposed project would not introduce any substantial new sources of day or nighttime lighting or glare in the area beyond what currently exists on the site. The new waste gas flares would be fully enclosed and would not emit any visible light or glare in the area.
Additionally, no nighttime construction work is anticipated for the proposed project.
There would be no impact related to creation of substantial new sources of day or nighttime lighting or glare in the area.
Level of Significance
No Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.7 3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forestland (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forestland or
conversion of forestland to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forestland to non-forest use?
3.2.1 Environmental Setting
Agricultural uses consisting of hayfields and other crop-related uses surround the RWRF on all sides. The California Department of Conservation (DOC) Important Farmland map classifies the majority of the land within the RWRF as “Urban and Built- Up Land” which is defined as non-agricultural land that contains structures and urban development (DOC 2016). There are no lands consisting of Prime Farmland or Farmland of Local or Statewide Importance or land enrolled in the Williamson Act contract within the proposed project area (DOC 2016, City of Fresno 2020a).
3.2.2 Methodology
The following analysis is based on a review of documents pertaining to the project site, including the General Plan, General Plan EIR, and DOC Important Farmland map. The following impact discussions consider the effects of the proposed project related to agriculture and forestry resources in the City.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.8 3.2.3 Environmental Impact Analysis
This section discusses potential impacts on agriculture and forestry resources associated with the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where necessary.
Impact AG-1 Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Impact Analysis
The project site is classified as “Urban and Built-Up” land by the DOC Important Farmland map (DOC 2016). The project site is not zoned or designated by the General Plan for agricultural uses. The proposed project would not result in changing the zoning or general plan land use designation for agricultural use. As such, the proposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use and no impact would occur.
Additionally, the RWRF serves a beneficial purpose to agriculture. Approximately 12-15 percent of the total acre-feet of wastewater that is treated at the RWRF goes for direct reuse to farmers leasing land within the RWRF boundaries or to neighboring farmers.
Up to 5 million gallons of wastewater per day is also treated to disinfected tertiary recycled water standards that can be used for farming or landscape irrigation.
The proposed project would have no impact to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.
Level of Significance
No Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact AG-2 Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? Impact Analysis
The project site is not enrolled in a Williamson Act contract and is not designated or zoned for agricultural use (City of Fresno 2020a).
The proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning or with a Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.9 Level of Significance
No Impact.
Impact AG-3 Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
Impact Analysis
The project site is vacant and does not contain forestland (as defined in PRC Section 12220(g)), or timberland (as defined by PRC Section 4526). Furthermore, the project is not zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104[g].
The project site is zoned for wastewater treatment and would not be rezoned forestland or timberland production.
The proposed project would not convert forestland or timberland to a non-agricultural use and no impact would occur.
Level of Significance
No Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact AG-4 Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forestland to non-forest use? Impact Analysis
There are no forestlands on or adjoining the project site, or within the general vicinity of the project site.
The proposed project would not result in the loss of forestland or the conversion of forestland to non-forest use. No impact would occur.
Level of Significance
No Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.10 Impact AG-5 Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non -agricultural use or conversion of forestland to non-forest use?
Impact Analysis
The project site does not contain lands with Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of State Importance, or Farmland of Local Importance, and is not enrolled in a Williamson Act contract map (DOC 2016). The project site is not zoned for forestland or timberland production and would not be rezoned for agricultural use.
The proposed project would not result in the conversion of farmland or forestland to a non-agricultural use. No impact would occur.
Level of Significance
No Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.11 3.3 AIR QUALITY
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under
an applicable federal or State ambient air
quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
c) Expose Sensitive Receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
3.3.1 Environmental Setting
The proposed project is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) regulates air quality in eight counties including: Fresno, Kern (western and central), Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare.
Air pollution in the SJVAB can be attributed to both human-related (anthropogenic) and natural (non-anthropogenic) activities that produce emissions. Air pollution from significant anthropogenic activities in the SJVAB includes a variety of industrial-based sources as well as on- and off-road mobile sources.
Activities that tend to increase mobile activity include increases in population, increases in general traffic activity (including automobiles, trucks, aircraft, and rail), urban sprawl (which will increase commuter driving distances), and general local land management practices as they pertain to modes of commuter transportation. These sources, coupled with geographical and meteorological conditions unique to the area, stimulate the formation of unhealthy air.
Criteria Air Pollutants
The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) establishes the framework for modern air pollution control. The FCAA, enacted in 1970 and amended in 1990, directs the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish ambient air quality standards.
These standards are divided into primary and secondary standards. The primary
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.12 standards are set to protect human health, and the secondary standards are set to protect environmental values, such as plant and animal life. The FCAA requires the EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards for the six criteria air pollutants.
These pollutants include particulate matter (PM), ground-level ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and lead. According to the SJVAPCD, ozone, particulate matter (PM
10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) are the major regional air pollutants of concern in the SJVAB. Ozone is primarily an issue in the summer and PM10 and PM2.5 in the winter.
Air Quality Standards
The Clean Air Act requires states to develop a general plan to attain and maintain the standards in all areas of the country and a specific plan to attain the standards for each area designated nonattainment. These plans, known as State Implementation Plans or SIPs, are developed by state and local air quality management agencies and submitted to EPA for approval.
The SIP for the State of California is administered by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), which has overall responsibility for statewide air quality maintenance and air pollution prevention. California’s SIP incorporates individual federal attainment plans for each regional air district. SIPs are prepared by the regional air district and sent to CARB to be approved and incorporated into the California SIP. Federal attainment plans include the technical foundation for understanding air quality (e.g., emission inventories and air quality monitoring), control measures and strategies, and enforcement mechanisms.
The CARB also administers the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for the 10 air pollutants designated in the California Clean Air Act. The 10 state air pollutants include the six federal criteria pollutant standards listed above as well as visibility-reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide, sulfates, and vinyl chloride. The federal and state ambient air quality standards are summarized in Table 3.3-1.
Table 3.3-1: California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time
California Standards National Standards
Concentration Primary Secondary
Ozone
1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 μg/m3) —
Same as Primary
Standard 8 Hour 0.070 ppm
(137 μg/m
3)
0.070 ppm
(137 μg/m
3)
Respirable
Particulate
Matter
24 Hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3
Same as Primary
Standard
Annual Arithmetic
Mean 20 μg/m
3 —
Fine 24 Hour — 35 μg/m3
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.13 Pollutant Averaging Time
California Standards National Standards
Concentration Primary Secondary
Particulate
Matter
Annual Arithmetic
Mean 12 μg/m3 12 μg/m3 Same as Primary
Standard
Carbon
Monoxide
1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) —
8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) —
8 Hour (Lake
Tahoe) 6 ppm (7 mg/m3) — —
Nitrogen
Dioxide
1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 μg/m3) 100 ppb
(188 μg/m3) —
Annual Arithmetic
Mean 0.030 ppm (57 μg/m
3) 0.053 ppm
(100 μg/m3)
Same as Primary
Standard
Sulfur Dioxide
1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 μg/m3) 75 ppb (196 μg/m3) —
3 Hour — — 0.5 ppm (1300
μg/m3)
24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 μg/m3) 0.14 ppm
(for certain areas) —
Annual Arithmetic
Mean — 0.030 ppm
(for certain areas) —
Lead
30-Day Average 1.5 μg/m3 — —
Calendar Quarter — 1.5 μg/m3
Same as Primary
Standard
Rolling 3-Month
Average — 0.15 μg/m3
Visibility-
Reducing
Particles
8 Hour See Footnote 1
No National Standards Sulfates 24 Hour 25 μg/m3
Hydrogen
Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3)
Vinyl
Chloride 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3)
Notes:
1 In 1989, the ARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are "extinction of 0.23 per kilometer" and "extinction of 0.07 per kilometer" for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.
mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter
μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Source: CARB 2016
As summarized in Table 3.3-2, the SJVAB is currently designated as nonattainment areas for state ozone, PM2.5, and PM10 standards, as well as national ozone and PM2.5 standards, but are listed as attainment under national PM10. The state and federal standards for CO, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and lead are being met in the SJVAB.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.14 Table 3.3-2: SJVAB Area Designations for State and National Ambient Air Quality Criteria Pollutants State Designation National Designation Ozone (1-hour) Nonattainment/Severe No Standard
Ozone (8-hour) Nonattainment Nonattainment/Extreme
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Unclassified Merced, Madera, and Kings Counties are
unclassified; others are in
Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Attainment
Sulfates Attainment —
Lead Attainment No Designation/Classification
Hydrogen Sulfide Unclassified —
Visibility Reducing Particles Unclassified —
Source: SJVAPCD 2020
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
The SJVAPCD is responsible for controlling emissions primarily from stationary sources in the SJVAB. The SJVAPD also coordinates with the eight county-wide transportation agencies to develop, update, and implement air quality attainment plans for the SJVAB.
The SJVAPCD may also serve as a lead agency, responsible agency, or commenting agency under CEQA.
Attainment Plans
Ozone
• The SJVAPCD has adopted the following plans to address ozone standards. • The SJVAPCD adopted the 2020 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard on June 18, 2020. • The SJVAPCD adopted the 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard in June 2016. This plan satisfies Clean Air Act requirements and ensures expeditious attainment of the 75 parts per billion 8-hour ozone standard. • The SJVAPCD adopted the RACT Demonstration for Ozone SIP in June 2014.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.15 • The SJVAPCD adopted the 2013 Plan for the Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard in September 2013.
• The SJVAPCD adopted the 2009 RACT Demonstration for Ozone SIP in April 2009.
• The SJVAPCD adopted the 2007 Ozone Plan in April 2007. This plan addresses EPA’s 8-hour ozone standard of 84 parts per billion (ppb), which was established by EPA in 1997.
• The SJVAPCD adopted the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan in October 2004 to address EPA’s 1-hour ozone standard. However, since EPA revoked this standard in 2005, EPA did not act on this plan until 2010, when a court decision required EPA action. EPA’s 2010 action approved the plan, but subsequent litigation led to a court finding that EPA had not properly considered new information available since the SJVAPCD adopted the plan in 2004. EPA thus withdrew its plan approval in November 2012, and the SJVAPCD and CARB withdrew this plan from consideration. While the 2004 plan is not a federally- approved plan, it is included here for reference.
Particulate Matter Plans
• The SJVAPCD adopted the 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards on November 15, 2018. This plan addresses the EPA federal 1997 annual PM2.5 standard of 15 μg/m³ and 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 65 μg/m³; the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 35 μg/m³; and the 2012 annual PM2.5 standard of 12 μg/m³.
• The SJVAPCD adopted the 2016 Moderate Area Plan for the 2012 PM2.5 Standard on September 15, 2016. This plan addresses the EPA federal annual PM2.5 standard of 12 µg/m3, established in 2012. This plan includes an attainment impracticability demonstration and request for reclassification of the Valley from Moderate nonattainment to Serious nonattainment. • The SJVAPCD adopted the 2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard on April 16, 2015. This plan addresses EPA’s annual PM2.5 standard of 15 µg/m3 and 24- hour PM2.5 standard of 65 µg/m3, established in 1997.
• The SJVAPCD adopted the 2012 PM2.5 Plan in December 2012. This plan addresses EPA’s 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 35 µg/m³, which was established by EPA in 2006.
• The SJVAPCD adopted the 2008 PM2.5 Plan in April 2008. This plan addresses EPA’s annual PM2.5 standard of 15 µg/m³, which was established by EPA in 1997.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.16 • The SJVAPCD adopted the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan in September 2007 to assure the San Joaquin Valley’s continued attainment of EPA’s PM10 standard.
EPA designated the Valley as an attainment/maintenance area for PM10.
Applicable Rules and Regulations
The following SJVAPCD rules and regulations would apply to the project:
Rule 2010 – Permits Required. The purpose of this rule is to require any person constructing, altering, replacing, or operating any source operation which emits, may emit, or may reduce emissions to obtain an Authority to Construct or a Permit to Operate.
Rule 2201 – New and Modified Stationary Source Review. The purpose of this rule is to provide for the following: (1) The review of new and modified Stationary Sources of air pollution and to provide mechanisms including emission trade-offs by which Authorities to Construct such sources may be granted, without interfering with the attainment or maintenance of Ambient Air Quality Standards; and (2) No net increase in emissions above specified thresholds from new and modified Stationary Sources of all nonattainment pollutants and their precursors.
Rule 2410 – Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD). The prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program is a construction permitting program for new major stationary sources and major modifications to existing major stationary sources located in areas classified as attainment or in areas that are unclassifiable for any criteria air pollutant. The intent of this Rule is to incorporate the federal PSD rule requirements into the District’s Rules and Regulations by incorporating the federal requirements by reference.
Rule 2520 – Federally Mandated Operating Permits (PSD). The purpose of this rule is to provide for the following: (1) An administrative mechanism for issuing operating permits for new and modified sources of air contaminants in accordance with requirements of 40 CFR Part 70; (2) An administrative mechanism for issuing renewed operating permits for sources of air contaminants in accordance with requirements of 40 CFR Part 70; (3) An administrative mechanism for revising, reopening, revoking, and terminating operating permits for sources of air contaminants in accordance with requirements of 40 CFR Part 70; (4) An administrative mechanism for incorporating requirements authorized by preconstruction permits issued under District Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) in a Part 70 permit as administrative amendments, provided that such permits meet procedural requirements substantially equivalent to the requirements of 40 CFR 70.7 and 70.8, and compliance requirements substantially equivalent to those contained in 40 CFR 70.6; (5) The applicable federal and local requirements to appear on a single permit.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.17 Rule 4101 – Visible Emissions. The purpose of this rule is to prohibit the emissions of visible air contaminants to the atmosphere.
Rule 4102 – Nuisance. The purpose of this rule is to protect the health and safety of the public and applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants or other materials.
Rule 4202 – Particulate Matter Emission Rate. The purpose of this rule is to limit particulate matter emissions by establishing allowable emission rates. The calculation methods for determining the emission rate based on process weight are specified.
Rule 4311 – Flares. The purpose of this rule is to limit the emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC), oxides of nitrogen (NO
x), and sulfur oxides (SOx) from the operation
of flares.
Rule 4601 – Architectural Coatings. The purpose of this rule is to limit Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) emissions from architectural coatings. Emissions are reduced by limits on VOC content and providing requirements on coatings storage, cleanup, and labeling.
Rule 4641 – Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations. The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from asphalt paving and maintenance operations. If asphalt paving will be used, then the paving operations will be subject to Rule 4641.
Rule 4801 – Sulfur Compounds. The purpose of this rule is to limit the emissions of sulfur compounds. A maximum concentration and test method are specified.
Regulation VIII – Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions. Rule 8011-8081 are designed to reduce PM10 emissions (predominantly dust/dirt) generated by human activity, including construction and demolition activities, road construction, bulk materials storage, paved and unpaved roads, carryout and trackout, etc. All development projects that involve soil disturbance are subject to at least one provision of the Regulation VIII series of rules.
SJVAPCD CEQA Guidelines
The SJVAPCD provides guidance and thresholds for CEQA air quality analyses. The result of this guidance as well as state regulations to control air pollution is an overall improvement in the SJVAB. In particular, the SJVAPCD’s 2015 Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) states the following:
1. The District’s Air Quality Attainment Plans include measures to promote air quality elements in county and city general plans as one of the primary indirect source programs. The general plan is the primary long-range planning document
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.18 used by cities and counties to direct development. Since air districts have no authority over land use decisions, it is up to cities and counties to ensure that their general plans help achieve air quality goals. Section 65302.1 of the California Government Code requires cities and counties in the San Joaquin Valley to amend appropriate elements of their general plans to include data, analysis, comprehensive goals, policies, and feasible implementation strategies to improve air quality in their next housing element revisions.
2. The Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans (AQGGP), adopted by the District in 1994 and amended in 2005, is a guidance document containing goals and policy examples that cities and counties may want to incorporate into their General Plans to satisfy Section 65302.1. When adopted in a general plan and implemented, the suggestions in the AQGGP can reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled and improve air quality. The specific suggestions in the AQGGP are voluntary. The District strongly encourages cities and counties to use their land use and transportation planning authority to help achieve air quality goals by adopting the suggested policies and programs.
Table 3.3-3: SJVAPCD Air Quality CEQA Thresholds of Significance Criteria Pollutants Construction-Related Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutants and
Precursors (regional)
Maximum Annual Emissions (tpy) Maximum Annual Emissions (tpy) ROG 10 10
NOx 10 10
PM10 15 15
PM2.5 15 15
SOx 27 27
CO 100 100
Notes:
tpy = tons per year
City of Fresno
The City of Fresno General Plan includes the following policies related to air quality that are applicable to the proposed project.
Objective RC-4. In cooperation with other jurisdictions and agencies in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, take necessary actions to achieve and maintain compliance with State and federal air quality standards for criteria pollutants.
RC-4-a Support Regional Efforts. Support and lead, where appropriate, regional, State and federal programs and actions for the improvement of air quality, especially the SJVAPCD’s efforts to monitor and control air pollutants from both stationary and mobile
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.19 sources and implement Reasonably Available Control Measures in the Ozone Attainment Plan.
RC-4-b Conditions of Approval. Develop and incorporate air quality maintenance requirements, compatible with Air Quality Attainment and Maintenance Plans, as conditions of approval for General Plan amendments, community plans, Specific Plans, neighborhood plans, Concept Plans, and development proposals.
RC-4-c Evaluate Impacts with Models. Continue to require the use of computer models used by SJVAPCD to evaluate the air quality impacts of plans and projects that require such environmental review by the City.
3.3.2 Methodology
Because the proposed project is a stationary source, an Authority to Construct/Permit to Operate (ATC/PTO) is required for the SJVAPCD. SCS Engineers has prepared the required application and included detailed emissions estimates for the proposed flares.
The emissions estimate for the proposed flares has been excerpted from the ATC/PTO application. Construction emissions for the proposed project were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2016.3.2. For modeling information please refer to Appendix A. The proposed modifications to emission units 9, 22, and 44 [Flare Unit 9, a compressor engine (Unit 22), and a trash pump engine (Unit 44] would entail equipment and/or hours of use adjustments to reduce the emissions of NOx during operations but would not generate any emissions during construction of the project.
3.3.3 Environmental Impact Analysis
This section discusses potential impacts on air quality associated with the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where necessary.
Impact AIR-1 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Impact Analysis
The CEQA Guidelines indicate that a significant impact would occur if the project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The GAMAQI states that projects that do not exceed SJVAPCD regional criteria pollutant emissions quantitative thresholds would not conflict with or obstruct the applicable air quality plan (AQP). Consistency with the applicable AQPs is also shown by implementation of applicable control measures from the AQPs.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.20 Regional Exceedances
The SJVAPCD evaluates stationary source and, as shown in Impact AIR-2, construction emissions of ROG, NOx, PM10, PM2.5, CO, and SOx are well below the SJVAPCD thresholds of significance. The proposed project would not result in an increase in employees, therefore non-permitted operational emissions would not increase. The proposed project would result in an increase in permitted operational emissions from the new flares.
As shown in Impact AIR-2, the new permitted flares would not result in emissions that exceed the SJVAPCD’s thresholds of significance. Because both construction and operational emissions would not exceed the SJVAPCD thresholds, the proposed project would not conflict with the AQPs.
C
ontrol Measures
The AQP contains several control measures, which are enforceable requirements through the adoption of rules and regulations. The SJVAPCD rules that would be applicable to the proposed project include the following:
• Rule 2010 – Permits Required.
• Rule 2201 – New and Modified Stationary Source Review. • Rule 2410 – Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD). • Rule 2520 – Federally Mandated Operating Permits (PSD). • Rule 4101 – Visible Emissions.
• Rule 4102 – Nuisance.
• Rule 4202 – Particulate Matter Emission Rate.
• Rule 4311 – Flares.
• Rule 4601 – Architectural Coatings.
• Rule 4641 – Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations.
• Rule 4801 – Sulfur Compounds.
• Regulation VIII – Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions
The proposed project would comply with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations.
Therefore, the proposed project complies with this criterion and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality attainment plan.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.21 Conclusion
The proposed project would be consistent with the applicable AQPs and would not obstruct implementation of the AQPs; the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; the impact would be less than significant.
Level of Significance
Less Than Significant Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact AIR-2 Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Impact Analysis
In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, the SJVAPCD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. Consistent with the GAMAQI recommendations, project construction and operational impacts are assessed separately below.
Construction Emission
Emissions from construction-related activities are generally short-term in duration but may still cause adverse air quality impacts. The project would generate emissions from construction equipment exhaust, worker travel, and fugitive dust. These construction emissions include criteria air pollutants from the operation of heavy construction equipment.
Table 3.3-4 provides the construction emissions estimate for the proposed project. The construction emissions are well below the recommended thresholds of significance. The emissions from construction would be less than significant.
Table 3.3-4: Annual Construction Emissions
Year
Emissions (Tons/Year)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
2021 0.046 0.51 0.36 0.0007 0.04 0.02
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.22 Year
Emissions (Tons/Year)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
2022 0.02 0.16 0.15 0.0003 0.01 0.008
Significance
Thresholds 10 10 100 27 15 15
Any Year
Exceed
Significance
Thresholds?
No No No No No No
Notes:
Source: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., CalEEMod 2016.3.2 Permitted Operational Emissions
The following analysis is excerpted from the ATC/PTO application prepared by SCS Engineers and included in Appendix A.
Flaring of digester gas (DG) results in three categories of air pollutants: Criteria Air Pollutants (CAPs), Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs), and Greenhouse Gases (GHGs).
HAPs is addressed are addressed under Impact AIR-3, and GHGs are addressed in Section 3.8 of this document.
CAP emissions from the flare combustion of DG consists of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), NOx, sulfur oxides (SOx), and emissions of PM 10 and
PM2.5. Note that VOCs and ROG are used interchangeably in the analysis.
With the exception of VOCs, Project CAP emissions are secondary pollutants, formed during the combustion process; whereas VOCs emitted by the flares consist of trace amounts of VOCs originating in the DG that were not destroyed during combustion.
Because of this distinction, and because DG flares are considered emission control devices rather than emission units, only project VOC emissions are subject to the District’s best available control technology (BACT) requirements.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.23 Pre-Project Emissions
The project will consist of new emission sources, as well as modification of existing emission sources. Pre-Project potential to emit (PTE) CAP emissions (PE1) for all sources associated with the project are summarized below.
Table 3.3-5: Pre-Project Potential to Emit (PE1) (tons per year) Permit # VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
9-15 Flare 0.43 9.64 46.0 7.88 0.788 0.788
45-0 Flare 0.69 15.4 51.2 15.7 1.28 1.28
New Flare 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
New Flare 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
PE1 Totals 1.12 25.04 97.2 23.6 2.07 2.07
Notes:
PM10 emissions are assumed to be equivalent to PM2.5
Source: SCS Engineers 2019, SJVAPCD Application Review for Project # C-1170082 and C-1170245, dated January 2019.
Post-Project Emissions
Post-Project PTE CAP (PE2) Camp emissions for all sources associated with the project are summarized below.
Table 3.3-6: Post-Project PTE (PE2) (tons per year)
Permit # VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
9-15 Flare 0.03 0.60 2.9 0.5 0.05 0.05
45-0 Flare 0 0 0 0 0 0
New Flare 1 0.80 7.41 17.8 18.2 0.88 0.88
New Flare 2 0.080 7.41 17.8 18.2 0.88 0.88
PE2 Totals 1.63 15.42 38.5 36.9 1.81 1.81
Notes:
PM10 emissions are assumed to be equivalent to PM2.5
Source: SCS Engineers 2019
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.24 The overall increase in permitted emissions associated with the project are shown in Table 3.3-7
Table 3.3-7: Post-Project PTE (PE2) (tons per year)
Permit # VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
PE2 Totals 1.63 15.42 38.5 36.9 1.81 1.81
PE 1 Totals 1.12 25.04 97.2 23.6 2.07 2.07
SSIPE 0.51 -9.62 -58.7 13.3 -0.26 -0.26
Significance
Thresholds
10 10 100 27 15 15
Exceed
Threshold?
No No No No No No
Significant? No No No No No No
Notes:
PM10 emissions are assumed to be equivalent to PM2.5
SSIPE = Stationary Source Project Increase in Permitted Emissions Source: SCS Engineers 2019
As shown in Table 3.3-7, the project emissions would be below the SJVAPCD thresholds of significance; the impact would be less than significant.
Facility-Wide Emissions
As discussed previously, the proposed project includes modifications to facility-wide sources. Stationary Source CAP Permitted Emissions (for all facility permitted emission units) were compiled for both the pre-project (SSPE1) and post-project (SSPE2) and are shown in Table 3.3-8 and Table 3.3-9, respectively.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.25 Table 3.3-8: Facility-Wide Stationary Source Pre-Project Potential to Emit (SSPE1)/New Source Review Analysis
Permit # Description VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
lbs/year
C-535-6-16 Digester-Fired
Boiler
805 1,.609 8,944 3,812 704 704
C-535-9-15 Waste Gas DG
Flare
913 19,0272 91,980 15,786 1,577 1,577
C-535-24-4 Compression
Engine
724 1,811 0 459 459
C-535-44-0 Trash pump
engine
56 26 2 0 0
C-535-10-3 Diesel-Fired
Emergency IC
Engine
12 1,188 289 1 24 24
C-535-11-3 Diesel-Fired
Emergency IC
Engine – Water
Pump
0 37 3 0 1 1
C-535-12-3 Diesel-Fired
Emergency IC
Engine
0 37 3 0 1 1
C-535-13-7 Odor Control
Scrubbing
System
2,902 0 0 0 0 0
C-535-17-3 Diesel-Fired
Emergency IC
Engine
6 113 30 0 4 4
C-535-26-6 Waste Gas DG
Flare
5,489 3,921 13,070 12,416 1,046 1,046
C-535-28-1 Unconfined
Abrasive Blasting
Operation
0 0 0 0 1,050 1,050
C-535-45-0 DG Flare 1,384 30,78 102,492 31,465 2,562 2,562 C-535-48-0 Paint Spray
Booth
510 0 0 0 14 14
Pre-Project (SSPE1) 12,801 56,925 218,648 63,482 7,442 7,442 Pre-Project (SSPE1)
(tons/year)
6.40 28.46 109.32 31.74 3.72 3.72
Notes:
NSR ‐ New Source Review
PE1 ‐ Pre-Project Potential to Emit
SSPE = Stationary Source Potential to Emit
PM10 emissions are assumed to be equivalent to PM2.5
Source: SCS Engineers 2019
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.26 Table 3.3-9: Facility-Wide Stationary Source Post-Project Potential to Emit (SSPE2)/New Source Review Analysis
Permit # Description VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
lbs/year
C-535-6-16 Digester-
Fired Boiler
805 1,.609 8,944 3,812 704 704
C-535-9-15 Waste Gas
DG Flare
54 3,432 5,800 1,000 100 100
C-535-24-4 Compression
Engine
724 1,811 0 459 459
C-535-44-0 Trash pump
engine
56 26 2 0 0
C-535-10-3 Diesel-Fired
Emergency
IC Engine
12 1,188 289 1 24 24
C-535-11-3 Diesel-Fired
Emergency
IC Engine –
Water Pump
0 37 3 0 1 1
C-535-12-3 Diesel-Fired
Emergency
IC Engine
0 37 3 0 1 1
C-535-13-7 Odor Control
Scrubbing
System
2,902 0 0 0 0 0
C-535-17-3 Diesel-Fired
Emergency
IC Engine
6 113 30 0 4 4
C-535-26-6 Waste Gas
DG Flare
5,489 3,921 13,070 12,616 1,046 1,046
C-535-28-1 Unconfined
Abrasive
Blasting
Operation
0 0 0 0 1,050 1,050
C-535-45-0 To be
removed
post-project
0 0 0 0 0 0
C-535-48-0 Paint Spray
Booth
510 0 0 0 14 14
TBD New Flare 1 1,601 14,826 35,583 36,413 1,752 1,752
TBD New Flare 2 1,601 14,826 35,583 36,413 1,752 1,752
Post-Project (SSPE2) 13,760 39,989 101,142 90,057 6,907 6,907 Post-Project (SSPE2)
(tons/year)
6.88 19.99 50.57 45.03 3.45 3.45
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.27 Permit # Description VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
lbs/year
Project Increase in
Permitted Emissions
(SSIPE) (lbs/year)
959 -16,936 -117,506 26,576 -535 -535
Project Increase in
Permitted Emissions
(SSIPE) (tons/year)
0.48 -8.47 -58.75 13.29 -0.27 -0.27
Significance Thresholds 10 10 100 27 15 15
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
Significant? No No No No No No
Notes:
TBD = to be determined
NSR ‐ New Source Review
PE2 ‐ Post‐Project Potential to Emit
SSPE = Stationary Source Potential to Emit
SSIPE = Stationary Source Project Increase in Permitted Emissions PM10 emissions are assumed to be equivalent to PM2.5
Source: SCS Engineers 2019
As shown in Table 3.3-9, the proposed project’s stationary source emissions increase would not exceed the SJVAPCD’s thresholds of significance; the impact is less than significant.
Because the facility is a major stationary source according to SJVAPCD Rule 2201, the project is subject to offsets for NO
x and SOx. The City will purchase the required offsets
from the SJVAPCD pursuant to the permitting action by the SJVAPCD.
The proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in any criteria air pollutant for which the region is in nonattainment under the federal or State ambient air quality standards; the impact is less than significant.
Level of Significance
Less Than Significant Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact AIR-3 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Impact Analysis
This discussion addresses whether the project would expose sensitive receptors to construction-generated fugitive dust (PM10), naturally occurring asbestos, construction- generated diesel particulate matter (DPM), operational related toxic air contaminants (TACs), or operational CO hotspots. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.28 air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved.
Heightened sensitivity may be caused by health problems, proximity to the emissions source, and/or duration of exposure to air pollutants. Children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with existing health problems are especially vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. Accordingly, land uses that are typically considered to be sensitive receptors include residences, schools, childcare centers, playgrounds, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals, and medical clinics. The project site is not considered a sensitive receptor. The nearest sensitive receptors are located 4,028 feet (1,227 meters) from the project site.
Construction Emissions
Fugitive Dust PM10
Fugitive dust (PM10) would be generated from site grading and other earth-moving activities. Most of this fugitive dust would remain localized and would be deposited near the project site. However, the potential for impacts from fugitive dust exists unless control measures are implemented to reduce the emissions from the project site. The project would implement fugitive dust control measures that are consistent with Regulation VIII established by the SJVAPCD. As a result, the project’s construction- generated fugitive dust impacts would be less than significant.
Naturally Occurring Asbestos
Construction in areas of rock formations that contain naturally occurring asbestos could release asbestos into the air and pose a health hazard. As described in the Regulatory Setting, BAAQMD enforces CARB’s ATCMs at sites that contain ultramafic rock. The ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying and Surface Mining Operations was signed into state law on July 22, 2002, and became effective in the Air Basin in November 2002. The purpose of this regulation is to reduce public exposure to naturally occurring asbestos. A review of the map containing areas more likely to have rock formations containing naturally occurring asbestos in California indicates that there is no asbestos in the immediate project area (U.S. Geological Survey 2011). Therefore, it can be reasonably concluded that the project would not expose sensitive receptors to naturally occurring asbestos. Impacts would be less than significant.
Diesel Particulate Matter
Construction activities have the potential to generate DPM emissions related to the number and types of equipment typically associated with construction. Off-road, heavy- duty diesel equipment used for site grading, paving, and other construction activities result in the generation of DPM. However, construction would be temporary and would occur over a relatively short duration in comparison to the operational lifetime of the project. In addition, operation of construction would occur intermittently throughout the course of a day over the course of the construction and would be located approximately
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.29 2,500 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor (residence located 1,600 feet north of the northernmost RWRF boundary at Polk Avenue), which would reduce concentrations of DPM. As such the likelihood that any sensitive receptor would be exposed to high concentrations of DPM for any extended period of time would be low. Therefore, the potential health hazards resulting from construction-related DPM exposure would be less than significant.
Operational Emissions
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
Traffic congestion and idling or slow-moving vehicles could create a potential CO hotspot. The proposed project would not temporarily increase traffic because of construction; however, construction traffic would be minimal and would not significantly increase traffic volumes on roadways resulting in significant delays. The impact would be less than significant. The project would not result in an increase in vehicle traffic during operation as such there would be no impact.
Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions
Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) emissions were estimated for the project by SCS Engineers (see Appendix A) for pre- and post-project sources. The result of the emissions estimate showed that the HAP emissions are approximately equal. There would be no change from baseline conditions.
From previous permitting, which included permitting of DG flare emissions, the SJVAPCD conducted a health risk assessment. As described in the SJVAPCD’s Application Review document (Project # C-1170082 & C-1170245, dated January 9, 2019) in the California Health & Safety Code 41700 Section, the SJVAPCD determined that HAP emission increases for that project were less than all three of the SJVAPCD’s significance levels (acute or chronic indices of 1 and a cancer risk of 20 in a million).
Note that the cancer risk was also determined to be less than 1 in a million, for that permitting, and as such, toxics best available control technology (TBACT) requirements were not triggered.
To provide a conservative estimate of potential health risks, the post-project HAP emissions were input into the SJVAPCD’s prioritization calculator. Based on the distance of 2,500 feet (782 meters) to the nearest sensitive receptor, the cancer score was 2.85, the chronic score was 0.09, and the acute score was 0.15. This would be less than the SJVAPCD’s thresholds of significance. The impact would be less than significant.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.30 Conclusion
The proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The impact is less than significant.
Level of Significance
Less Than Significant Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact AIR-4 Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Impact Analysis
Odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard and the ability to detect odors varies considerably among the populations and overall is subjective.
Project Construction
Diesel exhaust and ROGs would be emitted during construction of the project, which are objectionable to some; however, emissions would disperse rapidly from the project site and therefore not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. As such, construction odor impacts would be less than significant.
Project Operation
Land uses typically considered associated with odors include wastewater treatment facilities, waste-disposal facilities, or agricultural operations. The project is a wastewater treatment facility but has implemented strict controls and operational procedures to ensure that odors are minimized. The SJVAPCD does not have any recorded complaints against the facility within the past three years (SJVAPCD 2021).
The proposed flares would be subject to SJVAPCD Rule 4801, which limits sulfur compounds. Compliance with this regulation would minimize odors and result in a less than significant impact. In addition, the proposed flares would be more efficient than the existing flares and would generate fewer fugitive odor emissions.
The potential for the project to create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people during construction and operation would be considered less than significant.
Conclusion
The proposed project would result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. The impact is less than significant.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.31 Level of Significance
Less Than Significant Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.32 This page intentionally left blank.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.33 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, and regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
habitat conservation plan, natural
community conservation plan, or other
approved local, regional, or State habitat
conservation plan?
3.4.1 Environmental Setting
The proposed project is located wholly within the existing Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF). Biological resources in the area are very limited given the developed nature of the site. The proposed flare will be in area that currently contains non-native habit in the form of Bermuda/fescue grass mixture (lawn) and non-native ornamental trees. Buildings, RWRF facilities, and asphalt roads are adjacent to the project site. The RWRF is fenced in and thus limits potential encroachment by wildlife potentially foraging in the adjacent farm fields.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.34 3.4.2 Methodology
This section summarizes the methods used to identify and analyze potential impacts on sensitive habitats and effects on special-status plants and animals that may occur on the project site. Because the project is located within the RWRF biologists focused on database searches and literature reviews to determine which rare natural communities and special-status species have the potential to occur on the project site.
This section summarizes the methods used to identify and analyze potential impacts on sensitive habitats and effects on special-status plants and animals that may occur on the project site. Because the project is located within the RWRF, biologists focused on database searches and literature reviews to determine which rare natural communities and special-status species have the potential to occur on the project site.
Definition of Biological Study Area
For the purposes of this analysis, the Biological Study Area (BSA) is a 500-foot buffer surrounding the project disturbance footprint.
Definition of Special-Status Species
For the purposes of this analysis, special status species include:
• Species listed as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA); species that are under review may be included if there is a reasonable expectation of listing within the life of the project,
• Species listed as candidate, threatened, or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA),
• Species designated as Fully Protected or Species of Special Concern by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW),
• Plant species with a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) in categories 1 or 2, • Species designated as locally important by a Local Agency and/or otherwise protected through ordinance or local policy.
The potential for each special status species to occur in the study area was evaluated according to the following criteria:
• No. Habitat on and adjacent to the site is clearly unsuitable to meet the needs of the species (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime).
• Yes. Conditions on the site may, in some way, support a portion of the species ecology (foraging, reproduction, movement/migration).
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.35 • Present. Species has been recorded (e.g., CNDDB, other reports) on the site recently (within the last 5 years).
Literature Review and Database Analysis
The following sources were reviewed for information on special status biological resources in the project vicinity:
• CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFW 2020a) • CDFW’s Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS; CDFW 2020b) • CDFW’s California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) System (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988)
• California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2020)
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation system (USFWS 2020b)
• USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI; USFWS 2020c)
• Current and historical aerial imagery (Google LLC 2020) For each of these data sources, the search was focused on the Kearney Park, California USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle in which the project is located, plus the surrounding eight (8) quadrangles. For the CNDDB, a 10-mile search radius was used.
The CNDDB provides element-specific spatial information on individually documented occurrences of special-status species and sensitive natural communities. Some of the information available for review in the CNDDB is still undergoing review by the CDFW; these records are identified as unprocessed data. The CNPS database provides similar information as the CNDDB, but at a much lower spatial resolution. Much of this information in these databases is obtained opportunistically and is often focused on protected lands or on lands where development has been proposed. Neither database represents a comprehensive survey for special-status resources in the region. The absence of recorded occurrences in these databases at any specific location does not preclude the possibility that a special status resource could be present. The NWI provides comprehensive data, but at a low-resolution requiring confirmation in the field.
The results of the database searches were reviewed to develop a list of special status resources that may be present within the vicinity of the project. This list was then evaluated against the existing conditions based on review of current aerial imagery.
3.4.3 Environmental Impact Analysis
This section discusses potential impacts on biological resources associated with the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where necessary.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.36 Impact BIO-1 Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications on any species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Impact Analysis
The proposed project is located within a developed and landscaped area and will result in some vegetation removal, including at least one tree, and will cause ground disturbance near several other trees. The literature and database review identified 16 special status plant species, 20 special status animal species, and 1 sensitive vegetation community (Northern Claypan Vernal Pool) (see Special Status Species Table in Appendix B). Due to the developed nature of the project site, no special status plant species would occur on-site, and the sensitive vegetation community is not present. Two special status animal species have potential to occur and are discussed below.
San Joaquin Kit Fox
Vulpes macrotis mutica
Status: Federally Endangered and State Threatened
San Joaquin kit foxes are a subspecies of kit fox that is endemic to the Central Valley of California (USFWS 1998, 2010). They are found west of the Sierra Nevada crest in the San Joaquin Valley, Carrizo Plain, and Cuyama Valley, as well as other small valleys in the western foothills of the Central Valley. They occupy arid to semi-arid grasslands, open shrublands, savannahs, and grazed lands with loose-textured soils. San Joaquin kit foxes are well-established in some urban areas and are highly adaptable to human- altered landscapes. They generally avoid intensively maintained agricultural land uses.
San Joaquin kit foxes uses subterranean dens year-round for shelter and pup-rearing, but they will shelter under buildings and other structures. They are active at night but may be visible above ground near their dens during the day, particularly in the spring.
They feed primarily on small mammals, but will consume a variety of prey, and will scavenge for human food.
San Joaquin kit fox could occur transiently as the move through the region and/or in search of food. They may also reside on-site if there are burrows present or structures under which they can shelter. Given the existing fencing and the highly developed nature of the project site, transient species are not anticipated.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.37 Swainson’s Hawk
Buteo swainsoni
Status: State Threatened
Swainson’s hawks are found in grassland, desert, and agricultural landscapes throughout the Central Valley and Antelope Valley (Bechard et al. 2010, Zeiner et al. 1988). Some hawks may be resident, especially in the southern portion of their range, while others may migrate between winter and breeding habitats. They prefer larger isolated trees or small woodlots for nesting, usually with grassland or dry-land grain fields nearby for foraging but have been known to nest in large eucalyptus trees along heavily traveled free-way corridors and in large trees at rural residential areas.
Swainson’s hawks forage in grassland, open scrub, pasture, and dryland grain agricultural habitats, primarily for rodents. Swainson’s hawks do exhibit a moderate to high nest site fidelity for successful nest sites.
There are several large trees within 0.5 mile of the project site that could support nesting by Swainson’s hawk, and non-native grassland within the BSA and greater area provide suitable foraging habitat.
Native Nesting Birds
The trees on-site have the potential to support native nesting bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). It is also possible for ground nesting bird species to nest on-site; however, the active nature of the property, including landscape maintenance, would discourage ground nesting.
Conclusion
The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications on any species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the impact is less than significant.
Level of Significance
Less Than Significant Impact.
Mitigation Measures
General Plan MEIR Mitigation Measure BIO-4 is required. See attached MEIR Mitigation Measure Monitoring Checklist.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.38 Impact BIO-2 Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Impact Analysis
The project site does not contain riparian habitat, or any other sensitive natural communities identified within a local or regional plan, policy, and regulation, or by CDFW and USFWS.
The project would have no impact to sensitive habitats.
Level of Significance
No Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact BIO-3 Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as d efined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Impact Analysis
The majority of the RWRF is generally mapped in the NWI as Lacustrine. The project would be located wholly within the fenced RWRF developed area. The location of the project within the RWRF facility does not contain any aquatic features including any that could be considered jurisdictional. Therefore, no impact to water features would occur.
The proposed project would have no impact on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Level of Significance
No Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact BIO-4 Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Impact Analysis
Wildlife movement corridors, also referred to as dispersal corridors or landscape linkages, are generally defined as linear features along which animals can travel from
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.39 one habitat or resource area to another. Wildlife movement corridors can be large tracts of land that connect regionally important habitats that support wildlife in general, such as stop-over habitat that supports migrating birds or large contiguous natural habitats that support animals with very large home ranges (e.g., coyotes [Canis latrans], mule deer [Odocoileus hemionus californicus]). They can also be small scale movement corridors, such as riparian zones, that provide connectivity and cover to support movement at a local scale.
The project site is highly developed and does not contain sensitive native vegetation, or other features that would be conducive to wildlife movement. The project site is not located within an identified movement corridor or linkage and it does not contain features that could support small-scale local movement (e.g., streams). Additionally, the project site is completely fenced and located within a highly developed portion of the RWRF.
The proposed project would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Therefore, the project would have no impact to wildlife corridors.
Level of Significance
No Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact BIO-5 Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Impact Analysis
Construction of the project will remove one tree. The project site falls under the jurisdiction of the City of Fresno. The City generally requires issuance of a Tree Removal Permit from the City Landscape Maintenance Division prior to removal of any tree (City of Fresno Code of Ordinances Article 23, Section 15-2308) for development projects. The RWRF maintains landscaping at the project site, which includes planting and removing of all trees on the facility. A new tree will be planted by RWRF staff on- site to accommodate the loss of the old tree. A separate permit through the Landscape
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.40 Maintenance District would not apply in the RWRF and is not applicable in this situation (M. Bullis, personal communication, April 26, 2021).
Accordingly, the proposed project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. The impact would be less than significant.
Level of Significance
Less Than Significant Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact BIO-6 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
Impact Analysis
The project site is not located within or near the boundaries of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan (City of Fresno, 2020).
The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan; the project would have no impact to any HCPs or NCCPs.
Level of Significance
No Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.41 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as
identified in Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
3.5.1 Environmental Setting
Archaeological resources are places where human activity has measurably altered the earth or left deposits of physical remains. Archaeological resources may be either prehistoric (before the introduction of writing in a particular area) or historic (after the introduction of writing). Many of such places in this region are associated with either Native American or Euro-American occupation of the area.
The project site is located within the San Joaquin Valley, which has been occupied Native American groups for thousands of years. Although there are only a few archaeological sites that have been discovered, human occupation of the San Joaquin Valley dates to 11,000 years ago. Native American groups that inhabited the San Joaquin Valley include the Yokuts, a group of 40-50 recognizable tribes of the Pennution linguistic family. The City of Fresno lies at the intersection of three cultural- geographical divisions of Yokuts: Foothills, Northern Valley, and Southern Valley. The Foothill Yokuts included about 15 named tribes, representing the eastern third of the 40 to 50 recorded Yokuts tribes.
The current RWRF has been at its current site since 1909. The proposed project does not propose any modifications to existing buildings. The existing flare will be retained, and the additional flares will be added adjacent to the existing flare location. The project site is located wholly within the Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF) on land that was previously disturbed and landscaped with ornamental trees and lawn. The immediate area surrounding the project site includes the RWRF infrastructure, buildings, and internal roadways.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.42 3.5.2 Methodology
Because of the disturbed nature of the site and the limited excavation that will be required to implement the project, the analysis was focused on literature and database review.
A records search was completed at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) (File Number 20-394), located at California State University Bakersfield, California, on November 9, 2020. As an affiliate of the State of California Office of Historic Preservation, the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center is the official State repository of cultural resource records and reports for the region that includes Fresno County. The search included the entire project site as well as a one-quarter mile buffer around the project site (referred as project area throughout this section). The following inventories were reviewed:
• Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File (California Office of Historic Preservation)
• National Register of Historic Places
• California Inventory of Historic Resources (California Department of Parks and Recreation).
• California Historical Landmarks (California Office of Historic Preservation). • California Points of Historical Interest.
In addition, Stantec contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on November 17, 2020 to request a search of the Sacred Lands File and a list of Native American contacts that might have knowledge of tribal cultural resources within the project area. The request included a description of the proposed project as well as a location map. Assembly Bill 52 requires a 30-day consultation period with tribes who are on the NAHC consultation list that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project that is subject to the CEQA. Letters were sent to Native Americans listed by the NAHC on November 20, 2020. The consultation period closed on December 31, 2020. As of March 26, 2021, no response from Native Americans has been received.
3.5.3 Environmental Impact Setting
This section discusses potential impacts on cultural resources associated with the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where necessary. Four studies have been conducted within the project site, and three additional studies have been
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.43 conducted within 0.25-mile of the project site. No previously recorded cultural resources were identified within the project site and three resources are recorded within the 0.25- mile record search area (two are historic, one is prehistoric).
Impact CUL-1 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as identified in Section 15064.5?
Impact Analysis
No historical resources were identified within the project area, and there are no standing structures requiring evaluation. The project site is already fully developed. Therefore, the proposed project will not have an impact on any known or potential historical resources.
The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as identified in Section 15064.5; no impact would occur.
Level of Significance
No Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact CUL-2 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Impact Analysis
The archival research and the records search performed as part of the cultural resources’ analysis indicated that there are no known resources within the project area.
Although unlikely, subsurface construction activities such as trenching, or grading associated with the proposed project could potentially damage or destroy previously undiscovered cultural resources. Therefore, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 is proposed requiring implementation of standard inadvertent discovery procedures to reduce potential impacts to previously undiscovered subsurface historical resources. With the implementation of General Plan MEIR Mitigation Measure CUL-1, potential impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant.
The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5; the impact is less than significant.
Level of Significance
Less Than Significant Impact.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.44 Mitigation Measures
General Plan MEIR Mitigation Measure CUL-1 is required. See attached MEIR Mitigation Measure Monitoring Checklist.
Impact CUL-3 Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Impact Analysis
There are no known human remains within the project area, and no indications that the project location has been used for burial purposes in the past. Therefore, it is unlikely that human remains would be encountered during construction. However, ground disturbance and subsurface construction activities such as trenching, and grading associated with the proposed project could potentially disturb previously undiscovered human burial sites. Therefore, General Plan MEIR Mitigation Measure CUL-4 would be implemented to reduce impacts to a less than significant level by ensuring compliance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and PRC 5097.98.
The proposed project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries; the impact is less than significant.
Level of Significance
Less Than Significant Impact.
Mitigation Measures
General Plan MEIR Mitigation Measure CUL-4 is required. See attached MEIR Mitigation Measure Monitoring Checklist.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.45 3.6 ENERGY
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
3.6.1 Environmental Setting
Electricity and Natural Gas
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) provides electricity and natural gas service to the City of Fresno.
According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), total electricity consumption in the PG&E service area in 2018 was 80,368.7 gigawatt hours (GWh) (27,700.2 GWh for the residential sector and 52,668.4 GWh for the nonresidential sector). Total electricity consumption in Fresno county in 2018 was 7,651.9 GWh (2,744.3 GWh for the residential sector and 4,907.6 for the nonresidential sector). According to the CEC, total natural gas consumption in the PG&E service area in 2018 was 4,794.4 million therms (1,832.8 million therms for the residential sector and 2,961.6 million therms for the nonresidential sector). Total natural gas consumption in Fresno county in 2018 was 346.8 million therms (100.8 million therms for the residential sector and 246.0 million therms for the nonresidential sector).
In February 2018, PG&E announced that it had reached California's 2020 renewable energy goal three years ahead of schedule, and now delivers nearly 80 percent of its electricity from GHG free resources. Approximately 33 percent of PG&E’s electricity came from renewable resources including solar, wind, geothermal, biomass and small hydroelectric sources in 2017. Additionally, 78.8 percent of PG&E's total electric power mix is from GHG-free sources including nuclear, large hydro and renewable sources of energy.
Fuel
Petroleum is a non‐renewable fossil fuel. Petroleum is primarily recovered by oil drilling.
It is refined into many consumer products, primarily fuel oil and gasoline. The average fuel economy for light‐duty vehicles (autos, pickups, vans, and SUVs) in the United
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.46 States has steadily increased from about 14.9 miles per gallon (mpg) in 1980 to 22.0 mpg in 2015.
3.6.2 Methodology
The energy requirements for the proposed project were qualitatively assessed.
3.6.3 Environmental Impact Analysis
This section discusses potential energy impacts associated with the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where necessary.
Impact ENERGY-1 Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Impact Analysis
This impact addresses the energy consumption from both the short-term construction and long-term operations and are discussed separately below.
Construction Energy Demand
The proposed project would be constructed within 220 days and would require minimal construction equipment and workers. The construction equipment, worker vehicles, and material hauling trucks would temporarily increase fuel usage. However, there are no unusual characteristics to the proposed project that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction sites in other parts of the state. Therefore, it is expected that construction fuel consumption associated with the proposed project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than at other construction sites in the region. The impact would be less than significant.
Long-Term Energy Demand
The entire facility uses 142,000 thousand kilowatts of electricity per day. The proposed project would result in less than two percent increase in energy use for the proposed electrical building. This would be an insignificant increase in energy use, the impact would be less than significant.
The proposed project would not require any additional employees as such there would be no increase in transportation fuel during operations; the impact would be less than significant.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.47 Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. The impact is less than significant.
Level of Significance
Less than Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact ENERGY-2 Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Impact Analysis
The City of Fresno has adopted local plans that promote renewable energy and energy efficiency. Fresno Green—The City of Fresno’s Strategy for Achieving Sustainability— was adopted in 2007 (Fresno Green). One strategy of Fresno Green is for Fresno to become a leader in renewable energy use and creation of related innovative technology and new business enterprises. Fresno Green was the City’s first effort to improve sustainability. The City of Fresno General Plan Update and GHG Reduction Plan build on this initial effort.
The proposed project would comply with federal, State, and local regulations aimed at reducing energy consumption. Local regulations have been developed in accordance with federal and State energy regulations, such as the California Energy Code Building Energy Efficiency Standards (CCR Title 24, Part 6), the CALGreen Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11), and SB 743, which are also aimed at reducing energy consumption.
The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The impact would be less than significant.
Level of Significance
Less Than Significant Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.48 This page intentionally left blank.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.49 3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for
the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially result
in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
3.7.1 Environmental Setting
The City is located along the eastern margin of the southern San Joaquin Valley portion of the Great Valley Geomorphic Province of California. The San Joaquin Valley is generally boarded to the north by the Sacramento Valley, to the east by the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range, to the west by the Coast Ranges, and to the south by the
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.50 Transverse Ranges. The age of the deposits underlying the San Joaquin valley range from Jurassic to Holocene and include marine as well as continental rocks and deposits.
Generally, surface deposits in the City consists of sandy silts, silty sands, sands, clayey sands, sandy clays, and clayey silts (City of Fresno 2020b).
Although the City is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (DOC 2020), there are numerous faults within the larger San Joaquin Valley, including the largest and most prominent fault, the San Andreas Fault. The San Andreas Fault is considered a seismically active fault that has had a number of major surface-rupture earthquakes in the last 200 years. The San Andreas Fault is located approximately 60 miles west of the proposed project area.
According to the DOC, the proposed project area, and the City in a whole, is not located within any landslide hazards zones (DOC 2015) nor is the City known to contain areas that could be subject to lateral spreading and seismic settlement (City of Fresno 2020b).
Additionally, although subsidence has occurred within the San Joaquin Valley, the majority of this activity has been concentrated close to the mountains west of the City of Fresno, and within other areas near Tulare and Bakersfield.
3.7.2 Methodology
The following analysis is based on a review of documents pertaining to the project site, including the General Plan, General Plan EIR, and United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service soil reports. The following impact discussions consider the effects of the proposed project related to geology and soils in the City.
3.7.3 Environmental Impact Analysis
This section discusses potential impacts on geology and soils associated with the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where necessary.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.51 Impact GEO-1 Directly or indirectly cause p otential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death, involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on o ther substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides?
Impact Analysis
i. Fault Rupture
Surface rupture is associated with being located close to an active fault. There are no faults subject to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act in the City (DOC 2020). The nearest active fault to the project area is the San Andreas Fault, which is located approximately 60 miles west of the proposed project area.
Due to the lack of Alquist-Priolo fault zones in the project site, and the distance to the nearest active fault, the risk of surface rupture near the project site is low and no impact would occur.
The proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury, or death resulting from a fault rupture. No impact would occur.
ii. Ground Shaking
The project site is in a seismically active region and earthquake-related ground shaking is expected to occur during the design life of the proposed project.
Although the nearest active fault, the San Andreas Fault, is located over 60 miles from the project site, the potential for ground shaking to occur within the area is possible. The proposed project would be constructed in conformance with the latest edition of the California Building Code (CBC), which includes engineering standards appropriate to withstand anticipated ground accelerations at the project site. Conformance with the earthquake design parameters of the CBC would be subject to City review as part of the building site plan review and building permit review process. Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code (Section 11-101) and General Plan Policy NS-2-b, which require new development to prepare site-specific soil reports and incorporate the recommendations and findings of these reports into the project’s engineering and geotechnical analysis (City of Fresno 2020b).
The proposed project would directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury, or death resulting from ground
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.52 shaking. The recommendations and findings identified in the site-specific geotechnical analysis would be incorporated into the proposed project as part of project-specific Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Impacts related to ground shaking at the project site would be less than significant with implementation of project- specific Mitigation Measure GEO-1.
iii. Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction occurs when ground shaking from an earthquake causes a sediment layer saturated with groundwater to lose strength and take on the characteristics of a fluid, thus becoming similar to quicksand. Factors determining the liquefaction potential are soil type, the level and duration of seismic ground motions, the type and consistency of soils, and the depth to groundwater. Loose sands and peat deposits, along with recent Holocene age deposits, are more susceptible to liquefaction, while older deposits of clayey silts, silty clays, and clays deposited in freshwater environments are generally stable under the influence of seismic ground shaking. The primary factors affecting liquefaction include 1) intensity and duration of seismic ground shaking; 2) soil type; 3) relative density of granular soils; 4) moisture contact and plasticity of fine-grained soils; 5) overburden pressure; and 6) depth to groundwater.
The proposed project area is not located within a Liquefaction Zone, as delineated by the DOC (DOC2020).
The proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury, or death resulting from seismic- related liquefaction. Therefore, there would be no impact related to liquefaction of soils for the proposed project.
iv. Landslides
The topography of the project site and the surrounding area are flat, and in an area where slopes are considered very stable. Further, according to the DOC, the proposed project area, and the City in a whole, is not located within any landslide hazards zones (DOC 2015) Therefore, the potential for a landslide to occur is low. No impact would occur.
The proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury, or death resulting from landslides. There would be no impact.
Level of Significance
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.53 Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-1 is required. See attached Project-Specific Mitigation Measure Monitoring Checklist.
Impact GEO-2 Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Impact Analysis
Project construction activities would involve the removal of minimal vegetation, grading, and excavation of soils on approximately 0.20-acres within the existing RWRF. These activities could expose unprotected soils to stormwater runoff causing erosion and loss of topsoil. Although the site is under one acre, and thus would not be subject to the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) or Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), the Department of Public Utilities will include Best Management Practices (BMPs) for grading and erosion control consistent with the California Stormwater Quality Associations (CASQA) recommended BMPs for construction (CASQA 2019). Additionally, the overall topography of the site is flat and the potential for construction activities to result in substantial erosion or loss of topsoil is low. Soil erosion impacts would be less than significant because of the relatively small footprint of the project, the flat topography of the site, and the incorporation of grading and erosion controls into the project.
The proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; the impact is less than significant.
Level of Significance
Less Than Significant Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact GEO-3 Be located on strata or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on - or off- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Impact Analysis
The project site and surrounding area contains generally flat relief and is in an area where slopes are considered very stable. Existing infrastructure associated with the RWRF surround the project site on all sides, and the site itself has been previous disturbed from ongoing RWRF operations. The proposed project would be required to comply with the latest edition of the CBC, City Municipal Code (Section 11-101), and General Plan Policy NS-2-b, which requires site-specific soil reports to be prepared for all new developments in the City. The recommendations indicated in the site-specific soil report would be incorporated into the project design as part of Mitigation Measure
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.54 GEO-1. The City would review the project design plans during the building permit approval process to confirm these recommendations are incorporated into the proposed project.
Impacts related to unstable soils would be less than significant with project-specific Mitigation Measure GEO-1 incorporated.
The proposed project would not be located on strata or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse; the impact is less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Level of Significance
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-1 is required. See attached Project-Specific Mitigation Measure Monitoring Checklist.
Impact GEO-4 Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 1 B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property?
Impact Analysis
The proposed project site consists of highly disturbed soils that have been subject to ongoing operations at the RWRF. However, in order to ensure stability of the underlying site soils, the proposed project would be required to comply with the latest edition of the CBC, City Municipal Code (Section 11-101), and General Plan Policy NS-2-b, which requires site-specific soil reports to be prepared for all new developments in the City.
The recommendations indicated in the site-specific soil report would be incorporated into the project design as part of Mitigation Measure GEO-1.
The proposed project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 1 B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property with the project-specific Mitigation Measure GEO-1 incorporated; the impact is less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Level of Significance
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-1 is required. See attached Project-Specific Mitigation Measure Monitoring Checklist.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.55 Impact GEO-5 Have soils incapable of ad equately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
Impact Analysis
The proposed project consists of a waste gas flare project within the City’s existing RWRF and would not require septic tanks or any other alternative wastewater disposal system.
The proposed project would result in no impacts concerning soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater Level of Significance
No Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
No Impact.
Impact GEO-6 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Impact Analysis
The proposed project would involve minor ground disturbing activities which occur in areas that have previously been disturbed. Therefore, construction and excavation activities are unlikely to encounter significant paleontological resources. If any paleontological resources are encountered during construction or excavation activities, a qualified paleontologist would be contacted to assess the significance of the paleontological resource, as required by PRC Section 5097. No unique geologic features are located within the RWRF.
The proposed project would have no impact concerning directly or indirectly destroying a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
Level of Significance
Less Than Significant Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.56 This page intentionally left blank.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.57 3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or
regulation of an agency adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
3.8.1 Environmental Setting
The issue of combating climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) has been the subject of State legislation (AB 32 and Senate Bill 375). The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research has adopted changes to CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental checklist which is used for Initial Studies such as this one. The changes to the checklist, which were approved in 2010, are incorporated above in the two questions related to a project’s GHG impact.
Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)
GHGs and climate change are cumulative global issues. The CARB and EPA regulate GHG emissions within the State of California and the United States, respectively. While the CARB has the primary regulatory responsibility within California for GHG emissions, local agencies can also adopt policies for GHG emission reduction.
Many chemical compounds in the earth’s atmosphere act as GHGs, as they absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range. When radiation from the sun reaches the earth’s surface, some of it is reflected back into the atmosphere as infrared radiation (heat). GHGs absorb this infrared radiation and trap the heat in the atmosphere. Over time, the amount of energy from the sun to the earth’s surface should be approximately equal to the amount of energy radiated back into space, leaving the temperature of the earth’s surface roughly constant. Many gases exhibit these “greenhouse” properties.
Some of them occur in nature (water vapor, carbon dioxide [CO 2], methane [CH4], and
nitrous oxide), while others are exclusively human made (like gases used for aerosols).
The principal climate change gases resulting from human activity that enter and accumulate in the atmosphere are listed below:
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.58 Carbon Dioxide
CO2 enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, and chemical reactions (e.g., the manufacture of cement). CO2 is also removed from the atmosphere (or “sequestered”) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle.
Methane
CH4 is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. CH4 emissions also result from livestock and agricultural practices and the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills.
Nitrous Oxide
Nitrous oxide is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.
Fluorinated Gases
Hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorinated chemicals, and Sulfur hexafluoride are synthetic, powerful climate-change gases that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes.
Fluorinated gases are often used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances (i.e., chlorofluorocarbons, hydrochlorofluorocarbons, and halons). These gases are typically emitted in smaller quantities, but because they are potent climate-change gases, they are sometimes referred to as high global warming potential gases.
Emissions Inventories and Trends
California uses the annual statewide GHG emission inventory to track progress toward meeting statewide GHG targets. The inventory for 2016 shows that California’s GHG emissions continue to decrease, a trend observed since 2007. In 2016, emissions from routine GHG emitting activities statewide were 429 million metric tons of CO 2 equivalent
(MMTCO2e), 12 MMTCO2e lower than 2015 levels. This puts total emissions just below the 2020 target of 431 million metric tons (CARB 2018).
Potential Environmental Impacts
For California, climate change in the form of warming has the potential to incur/exacerbate environmental impacts, including, but not limited to, changes to precipitation and runoff patterns, increased agricultural demand for water, inundation of low-lying coastal areas by sea-level rise, and increased incidents and severity of wildfire events (Moser et al. 2009). Cooling of the climate may have the opposite effects.
Although certain environmental effects are widely accepted to be a potential hazard to
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.59 certain locations, such as rising sea level for low-lying coastal areas, it is currently infeasible to predict all environmental effects of climate change on any one location.
Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. Therefore, the cumulative global emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change can be attributed to every nation, region, and city, and virtually every individual on earth. A project’s GHG emissions are at a micro-scale relative to global emissions but could result in a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative macro-scale impact.
Regulatory Requirements
California has adopted statewide legislation addressing various aspects of climate change and GHG emissions mitigation. Much of this legislation establishes a broad framework for the state’s long-term GHG reduction and climate change adaptation program. The governor has also issued several executive orders (EOs) related to the state’s evolving climate change policy. Of particular importance are AB 32 and Senate Bill 32, which outline the state’s GHG reduction goals of achieving 1990 emissions levels by 2020 and a 40 percent reduction below 1990 emissions levels by 2030.
The City of Fresno adopted its first GHG Reduction Plan (GHG Plan) in December 2014. The GHG Plan established a target of reducing per capita GHG emissions in the city by 21.7 percent below 2020 business-as-usual (BAU) levels by 2020 and includes GHG reduction measures designed to achieve the reduction target. The GHG Plan is considered a “Qualified Plan,” according to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §15183.5.2 Since adoption of the GHG Plan, two significant regulations/decisions have been established. First, on September 28, 2016, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 32 into law that sets a Statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Additionally, on November 30, 2015, the California Supreme Court published its decision on the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan invalidating the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a variety of reasons, including the use of 29 percent below business-as-usual (BAU) as a threshold to determine significance of GHG emissions under CEQA without any supporting evidence.
The GHG Plan Update adopted with the General Plan Update in August 2020 ensures conformity with the mandates of California Supreme Court in the Newhall Ranch case and the State of California’s latest GHG regulations. The GHG Plan Update re- evaluated the City’s GHG reduction targets and existing reduction strategies from the 2014 GHG Plan. New goals and supporting measures were included to reflect and ensure compliance with changes in the local and State policies and regulations such as SB 32 and California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. The City’s GHG inventory, based on the most recent data available for the year 2016 was evaluated and the future
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.60 growth in emissions for the BAU and adjusted BAU (ABAU) scenarios (the ABAU scenario takes into account the State policies) for the years 2020, 2030, and 2035 are projected. The 2020 and 2030 forecast years are consistent with the goals identified in Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and SB 32, which identify Statewide GHG reduction targets by 2020 and 2030. The 2035 forecast year correspond to the City’s General Plan horizon year and will allow the City to develop long-term strategies to continue GHG reductions.
3.8.2 Thresholds
The City created a CEQA Project Consistency Checklist to ensure a project’s consistency with the GHG Reduction Plan. The purpose of this GHG Reduction Plan Update Consistency Checklist (Checklist) is to help the City provide a streamlined review process for new development projects that are subject to discretionary review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183.5.
This Checklist was developed as part of the GHG Plan Update implementation and monitoring process and supports the achievement of individual GHG reduction strategies as well as the City’s overall GHG reduction goals. In addition, the Checklist furthers the City’s sustainability goals and policies that encourages sustainable development and aims to conserve and reduce the consumption of resources, such as energy and water. Projects that meet the requirements of this Checklist are deemed to be consistent with the Fresno GHG Reduction Plan Update and are found to have a less than significant contribution to cumulative GHG (i.e., the project’s incremental contribution to cumulative GHG effects is not cumulatively considerable), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(3), 15130(d), and 15183(b).
3.8.3 Methodology
SCS Engineers has prepared the required application and included GHG emissions estimates for the proposed flares. The emissions estimate for the proposed flares has been excerpted from the ATC/PTO application. Construction emissions for the proposed project were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2016.3.2. For modeling information please refer to Appendix A.
3.8.4 Environmental Impact Analysis
This section discusses potential impacts concerning greenhouse gases associated with the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where necessary.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.61 Impact GHG-1 Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Impact Analysis
Constructions Emission Inventory
Construction GHGs would be emitted by the off-road construction equipment and vehicle travel by workers and material deliveries to the project site. The estimated construction GHG emissions are shown in Table 3.8-1.
Table 3.8-1: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Construction Year MTCO2e
2021 68
2022 25
Total 93
Source: CalEEMod Output (Appendix A)
Operational Emission Inventory
The project would not result in an increase in emissions from non-permitted operational sources (employees), as such only the permitted stationary sources are reported. Only anthropogenic GHGs are regulated pollutants, therefore the SJVAPCD only considers methane and nitrous oxide emissions, but not CO
2 emissions. The following summarize
all project GHG emissions.
Permitted Stationary Sources
The pre-project potential GHG emissions are shown in Table 3.8-2. Total GHG emissions would be 47,895 tons of CO2 equivalents (CO2e). The regulated emissions total only 222 tons of CO2e.
Table 3.8-2: Pre-Project Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Unit Combustion
CO2
Tons
Passthrough
CO2
Tons
Methane
Tons CO2e
Nitrous Oxide
Tons CO2e
Total GHG
From Flare
Tons CO2e
Flare Unit 9 9,128 9,128 25 60 18,341
Flare Unit 45 14,710 14,710 41 96 29,557
Pre-Project Total (PE1) 47,895
Anthropogenic (Regulated) Emissions 66 156 222
Biogenic (Non-
Regulated)
Emissions
23,838 23,838 47,678
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.62 Unit Combustion
CO2
Tons
Passthrough
CO2
Tons
Methane
Tons CO2e
Nitrous Oxide
Tons CO2e
Total GHG
From Flare
Tons CO2e
Notes:
Pre-Project potential to emit (PE1)
Source: SCS Engineers, 2019
The post-project potential GHG emissions are shown in Table 3.8-3. The total GHG emissions post-project would be 68,411 tons of CO2e. The regulated GHG emissions would be 323 tons of CO2e. The net GHG emissions for regulated and non-regulated GHGs would be 20,513 tons of CO2e, the net regulated GHG emissions would 101 tons of CO2e.
Table 3.8-3: Post-Project Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Unit Combustion
CO2
Tons
Passthrough
CO2
Tons
Methane
Tons CO2e
Nitrous Oxide
Tons CO2e
Total GHG
From Flare
Tons CO2e
Flare Unit 9 574 574 1.60 3.76 1,154
New Flare #1 17,023 17,023 47 111 34,205
New Flare #2 17,023 17,023 47 111 34,205
Post-Project Total (PE2) 68,411
Anthropogenic (Regulated) Emissions 96 226 323
Biogenic (Non-
Regulated)
Emissions
34,624 34,621 69, 241
Net Project GHG Emissions (PE2-PE1) 20,513
Net Regulated GHG Emissions 101
Notes:
Post-Project potential to emit (PE2)
Source: SCS Engineers, 2019
The City of Fresno has established that a project’s consistency with its GHG Reduction Plan Update (evidenced through its Checklist) determines whether a project’s GHG emissions are significant. As shown in Impact GHG-2, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s GHG Reduction Plan Update, as such GHG emissions are less than significant.
The proposed project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; the impact is less than significant.
Level of Significance
Less Than Significant Impact.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.63 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact GHG-2 Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Impact Analysis
The City prepared its GHG Reduction Plan Update to show consistency with applicable strategies for reducing greenhouse gases consistent with AB 32 and SB 32. The GHG Reduction Plan Update – CEQA Project Consistency Checklist determines whether a project is consistent with the GHG Reduction Plan Update. The checklist questions have been reproduced below to determine the proposed project’s consistency.
Checklist Item Yes No Not Applicable
N/A
Explanation
Is the project
consistent with the
approved General
Plan, Specific Plan,
and Community
Plan planned land
use and zoning
designations?
X
Strategy 1: Land Use and Transportation Demand Management Does the project
provide complete
streets for all
roadway
improvements?
(Complete streets
are roadways that
include curb, gutter,
and sidewalks on
both sides of the
street. For local and
collector streets,
adequate roadway
width is provided to
accommodate two-
way vehicle traffic
and bicycles and
arterial streets
include striping for
bike lanes.)
X
Is the project a large
employer (over 100
employees) and if
so will the project
comply with
SJVAPCD Rule
9410 and provide an
Employer Trip
X
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.64 Checklist Item Yes No Not Applicable
N/A
Explanation
Reduction
Implementation Plan
that will include trip
reduction methods
such as increasing
transit use,
carpooling,
vanpooling,
bicycling, or other
measures?
Strategy 2: Energy Conservation and Renewable Energy
Does the project
meet the mandatory
energy efficiency
measures of the
California Green
Building Standards
Code (CalGreen)? If
the Project exceeds
mandatory
CalGreen measures
then provide the tier
number that the
project will meet in
the explanation.
X The project would
be required to
comply with
CalGreen
standards.
For commercial
projects, does it
achieve net zero
electricity? Mark NA
if project will be
permitted before
2030. Mark Yes if
voluntary. Add
source and capacity
in explanation.
X The project is not a
commercial project
and will be built
before the year
2030.
Does the project
include onsite
energy generation
using renewable
energy? If no, mark
NA. If yes, provide
source and capacity
in the explanation.
X The project does not
include renewable
energy but helps the
facility as a control
for excess gas from
its digester gas
energy production.
Strategy 3: Water Conservation
Does the project
meet the mandatory
indoor water use
measures of the
CalGreen Code? If
the project exceeds
CalGreen Code
mandatory
X
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.65 Checklist Item Yes No Not Applicable
N/A
Explanation
measures provide
methods in excess
of requirements in
the explanation.
Examples may
include water pipe
insulation, pressure
reducing valves,
energy efficient
appliances such as
Energy Star
Certified
dishwashers,
washing machines,
dual flush toilets,
point of use and/or
tankless water
heaters. Provide the
measures, devices,
or systems that the
project will include in
the explanation.
Does the project
meet the mandatory
outdoor water use
measures of the
CalGreen Code? If
the project exceeds
CalGreen Code
mandatory
measures provide
methods in excess
of requirements in
the explanation?
Examples may
include any outdoor
water conservation
measures such as;
drought tolerant
landscaping plants,
compliant irrigation
systems, xeriscapes
etc. Provide the
conservation
measure that the
project will include in
the explanation.
X
Strategy 4: Solid Waste Diversion and Recycling
When completed will
the project
implement
techniques for solid
waste diversion and
reduction (i.e.,
X
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.66 Checklist Item Yes No Not Applicable
N/A
Explanation
recycling,
composting, waste
to energy
technology, waste
separation)?
During construction
will the project
recycle construction
and demolition
waste?
X
As shown above, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable measure from the GHG Reduction Plan Update, accordingly, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable GHG Reduction Plan and would have a less than significant GHG impact.
The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases; the impact is less than significant.
Level of Significance
Less Than Significant Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.67 3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely-hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures, either directly
or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires?
3.9.1 Environmental Setting
Hazardous materials, as defined by the CCR, are substances with certain physical properties that could pose a substantial present or future hazard to human health or the
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.68 environment when improperly handled, disposed, or otherwise managed. Hazardous materials are grouped into the following four categories, based on their properties:
• Toxic – Causes Human Health Effects
• Ignitable – Has the Ability to Burn
• Corrosive – Causes Severe Burns or Damage to Materials • Reactive – Causes Explosions or Generates Toxic Gases Hazardous waste is any hazardous material that is discarded, abandoned, or slated to be recycled. The criteria that define a material as hazardous also define a waste as hazardous. If improperly handled, hazardous materials and hazardous waste can result in public health hazards if released into the soil or groundwater or through airborne releases in vapors, fumes, or dust.
California Government Code, Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to compile, maintain, and update specified lists of hazardous material release sites. The required lists of hazardous material release sites are commonly referred to as the “Cortese List,” which are contained on internet websites, including the online EnviroStor database from the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the online GeoTracker database from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). These two databases include hazardous material release sites, along with other categories of sites or facilities specific to each agency’s jurisdiction. A search of EnviroStor and GeoTracker databases in December 2020 revealed the project site is not listed as an active hazardous material release site (SWRCB 2020, DTSC 2020).
The RWRF previously was listed as a Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) site, however, the site was cleaned up and the case was closed as on early 2000 (SWRCB 2020).
There are no public or private airports within two miles of the RWRF, and subsequently, the RWRF is not located within an airport land use plan. The nearest airports to the project site are the Bland Field Airport and the Fresno Chandler Executive Airport, located approximately 7.3 miles west and 4.6 miles northeast of the project site, respectively. The nearest school to the proposed project site is West Fresno Elementary School, which is located approximately 5.7 miles to the east of the project site.
Additionally, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), the City is not located in or adjacent to a local or state fire hazard severity zone (CAL FIRE 2018).
3.9.2 Methodology
The following analysis is based on a review of documents pertaining to the project site, including the General Plan, General Plan EIR, and online regulatory compliance databases. The following impact discussions consider the effects of the proposed project related to hazards and hazardous materials in the City.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.69 3.9.3 Environmental Impact Analysis
This section discusses potential impacts concerning hazards and hazardous materials associated with the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where necessary.
Impact HAZ-1 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Impact Analysis
The proposed project would involve the construction and operation of two new waste gas flares at the existing Fresno-Clovis RWRF, which would be in addition to the existing waste gas flare at the site. During the construction phase, limited amounts of hazardous materials would be used, including standard construction materials such as concrete, paints, solvents, and heavy construction equipment which would contain diesel fuels and oils. The project contractor would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations related to the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, as overseen by the California Environmental Protection Agency and DTSC. During operation of the proposed project, the use of hazardous materials would be limited to those currently used onsite for RWRF operations.
The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; the impact would be less than significant.
Level of Significance
Less Than Significant Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact HAZ-2 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Impact Analysis
The proposed project would involve the construction and operation of two new waste gas flares at the existing Fresno-Clovis RWRF, which would be in addition to the existing waste gas flare at the site. The proposed project would not include any activities associated with the demolition of structures prior to the 1980s and would not pose a hazard regarding asbestos containing materials and lead-based paints. As discussed in Impact HAZ-1, project construction and operation activities would involve limited use of hazardous materials, including paints, solvents, fuels, oils, and cleaners.
The use of these substances is not expected to create a significant hazard to the public
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.70 or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset or accident. Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws pertaining to the safe handle, storage, and transport of hazardous materials which are currently employed at the RWRF site for existing operations.
The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment; the impact is less than significant.
Level of Significance
Less Than Significant Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact HAZ-3 Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely-hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Impact Analysis
The nearest school to the proposed project site is West Fresno Elementary School, which is located approximately 5.7 miles to the east of the project site, therefore the proposed project would not be located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
The proposed project would have no impact concerning emitting hazardous emissions or handling hazardous or acutely-hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
Level of Significance
No Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact HAZ-4 Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Impact Analysis
The project site is not included on any active hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (DTSC 2020, SWRCB 2020). Therefore, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment and no impact would occur.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.71 The proposed project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, thus it would it not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment as a result of its location.
Level of Significance
No Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact HAZ-5 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
Impact Analysis
The project site is not located within 2 miles of a public airport. The nearest airports to the project site are the Bland Field Airport and the Fresno Chandler Executive Airport, located approximately 7.3 miles west and 4.6 miles northeast of the project site, respectively. As such, the project site does not fall within an airport land use plan and would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise levels for people residing or working in the project area.
The proposed project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area because it is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport; no impact would occur.
Level of Significance
No Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact HAZ-6 For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Impact Analysis
The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The nearest private airport is Bland Field Airport which is located approximately 7.3 miles west of the project site. As such, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.72 The proposed project would not result in a safety hazard people residing or working in the project area because it is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip; no impact would occur.
Level of Significance
No Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact HAZ-7 Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Impact Analysis
The proposed project would not involve permanent modification of existing roadways and was reviewed by the City of Fresno Fire Department. All construction activities would occur within the existing RWRF and no partial or full road closures are anticipated for the proposed project. Construction vehicles would access the site from W. Jensen Avenue, which is similar to existing conditions where maintenance vehicles and workers access the RWRF on a daily basis. Therefore, project construction and operation activities would not interfere with emergency access or any evacuation or response plans, and a less than significant impact would occur.
The proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Level of Significance
Less Than Significant Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact HAZ-8 Expose people or structures either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
Impact Analysis
CAL FIRE does not identify the City in a local or state very high fire hazard severity zone (CAL FIRE 2018). According to the General Plan EIR, the generally urbanized and agricultural nature of the City, the wildfire threat in the City is considered minimal (City of Fresno 2014). The project site is located in an urbanized portion of the City, within the existing RWRF site. The RWRF is also surrounded by agricultural fields which further reduces potential wildfire. In addition, there is no dry, potentially-flammable, vegetation currently on-site. As such, the proposed project is not expected to be exposed to risks associated with wildland fires.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.73 The proposed project would not expose people or structures either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires; no impact would occur.
Level of Significance
No Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.74 This page intentionally left blank.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.75 3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface or
groundwater quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site;
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
3.10.1 Environmental Setting
Regional Hydrology
The project site is located within the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region and Tulare Lake watershed. The Tulare Lake watershed covers approximately 17,000 square miles and is bordered by the San Joaquin River Basin to the north, the Sierra Nevada mountains to the east, the Coast/Diablo Range to the west, and the Tehachapi Mountains to the south. The major surface water sources in the basin are the Kings, Kaweah, Tule, and
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.76 Kern rivers, all of which flow from the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range. The San Joaquin River and the Kings River are the principal rivers that influence the hydrology within the City, which are controlled by three dams: Friant, Mendota, and the Pine Flat Dams (City of Fresno 2020b).
The City is underlain by the Kings River Sub-basin, which is one of six sub-basins that comprise the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. The Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region spans approximately 10.9 million acres (17,000 square miles) and includes most of Fresno County. Groundwater supplies within the sub-basin have declined at a maximum rate of 3 feet per year in the northeastern portion of the City and 0.5 feet per year in the southwest portion of the City’s Downtown area (City of Fresno 2020b).
Further, although surface and drinking water generally meet drinking water standards, extensive contamination occurs throughout the area from leaking underground storage tanks and use of pesticides (City of Fresno 2020b).
Regional Flooding
The City is located within the alluvial fans of numerous streets and creeks which drain into the Sierra Nevada Mountains and eventually into the City. According to the General Plan EIR and as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), most of the City is located outside of the 100-year flood hazard zone, except for areas adjacent to the San Joaquin River and tributary creeks. According to the FEMA Flood Rate Insurance Map #06019C2085H, the proposed project area is in an area of minimal flood hazard (FEAM 2009).
Site Hydrology and On-Site Drainage
The project site is generally flat with no onsite streams, rivers, or other natural or manmade surface water sources. The existing RWRF has onsite drainage with allows for stormwater to flow from the existing structures and facilities associated with the operation of the RWRF.
3.10.2 Methodology
The following analysis is based on review of the General Plan and General Plan EIR.
The following impact discussions consider the impacts of the proposed project related to hydrology and water quality.
3.10.3 Environmental Impact Analysis
This section discusses potential impacts on hydrology and water quality associated with the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where necessary.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.77 Impact HYD-1 Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Impact Analysis
During construction, the potential exists for spills of petroleum, oils, and lubricants from construction equipment to be transported off the project site during rain events. As discussed in Section 3.7, Geology and Soils, although the site is under one acre, and thus would not be subject to the requirements of NPDES and SWPPP, the Department of Public Utilities will include standard SWPPP BMPs into the project. These BMPs would control runoff which would limit potential impacts due to erosion and resulting water quality impacts to less than significant levels. Once operational the proposed project would not result in any violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
Construction and operation of the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality; the impact is less than significant.
Level of Significance
Less Than Significant Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation necessary.
Impact HYD-2 Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Impact Analysis
The proposed project construction and operation would not require any draw on groundwater from the site, and therefore would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies. However, new construction could result in impacts related to groundwater recharge if areas currently available for the infiltration of rainfall runoff are reduced and permeable areas are replaced by impermeable surfaces. The proposed project would result in an additional 3,225 square feet (0.07-acre) of new impervious surface. While the proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surface at the project site, the proposed project would be constructed in a manner that would allow for some groundwater recharge to continue within the RWRF. Existing drainages on site allow for controlled runoff flow at the site, which would continue with implementation of the proposed project. There are no proposed changes to the existing drainage system.
The proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge or impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. As such, impacts related to groundwater would be less than significant.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.78 Level of Significance
Less Than Significant Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation necessary.
Impact HYD-3 Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of s urface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Impact Analysis
i. Erosion or siltation
The proposed project would not involve the alteration of any natural drainage channels or any watercourse. As discussed in Section 3.7, Geology and Soils, although the site is under one acre, and thus would not be subject to the requirements of NPDES and SWPPP, the City’s Municipal Code (Section 15‐ 3302) requires every approved permit to be conditioned on compliance with the requirements for grading and erosion control, including the prevention of sedimentation or damage to off‐site property. Additionally, the overall topography of the site is flat and the potential for construction activities to result in substantial erosion or siltation.
The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; the impact is less than significant.
ii. Surface runoff resulting in flooding on- or off-site The proposed project would not result in the alteration of a stream or river or fringes such that flooding on or offsite would occur. Construction activities would
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.79 not result in substantial surface runoff, and all construction activities would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code (Section 15‐3102) which requires the prevention of stormwater runoff. Additionally, the overall topography of the site is flat and the potential for construction activities to result in substantial flooding or runoff.
The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantially increasing the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; impacts would be less than significant.
iii. Exceed capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems/additional sources of polluted runoff
The proposed project would convert approximately 3,225 square feet (0.07-acre) of the existing RWRF with new impervious areas. The increase in impervious surface could potentially increase the volume and velocity of surface water runoff at the site. However, when compared to the size of the entire RWRF (approximately 3,293 acres), the addition of 0.07-acre of imperious surface would represent approximately 0.002 percent of the total area within the RWRF.
Further, the RWRF currently has adequate onsite drainage to control stormwater runoff through the site. The proposed project would not result in a substantial change to this existing system.
The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in exceeding capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems/additional sources of polluted runoff; the impact would be less than significant.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flow
According to FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map #06019C2085H, the proposed project area is in an area of minimal flood hazard (FEAM 2009). The project site is not located within or near and surface waters and does not experience substantial flooding.
The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in impeding or redirecting flood flow; no impact would occur.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.80 Level of Significance
No Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation necessary.
Impact HYD-4 In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Impact Analysis
According to FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map #06019C2085H, the proposed project area is in an area of minimal flood hazard (FEAM 2009). The project site is more than 100 miles from the Pacific Ocean and, therefore, is not prone to tsunami hazards. A seiche affects locations adjacent to larger water bodies such as lakes or reservoirs. The project site is not located near any such water body.
The proposed project would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation. No impacts would occur.
Level of Significance
No Impact
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact HYD-5 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Impact Analysis
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), effective January 1, 2015, established a framework of priorities and requirements to facilitate sustainable groundwater management throughout the State. The intent of SGMA is for groundwater to be managed by local public agencies and newly-formed Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) to ensure a groundwater basin is operated within its sustainable yield through the development and implementation of a Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSP). The City of Fresno is located within the jurisdiction of the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (NKGSA), which was formed in 2016. In November 2019, the NKGSA adopted the North Kings GSP with the sustainability goal to ensure that by 2040 the Kings Groundwater Subbasin is being managed in a sustainable manner to maintain a reliable water supply by balancing water demand with available water supply.
As noted above, the project would not result in significant impacts to water quality following implementation of the proposed project and conformance with the local municipal code specifications required for the proposed project. Additionally, the
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.81 proposed project would not draw groundwater from the site, and therefore would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies. New construction could result in impacts related to groundwater recharge if areas currently available for the infiltration of rainfall runoff are reduced and permeable areas are replaced by impermeable surfaces.
However, the proposed project would result in minimal new impermeable surface area (approximately .07-acre) and would be designed to allow runoff to flow within the RWRF as under current conditions at the site.
The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan and no impact would occur.
Level of Significance
No Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.82 This page intentionally left blank.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.83 3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Physically divide an established
community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
3.11.1 Environmental Setting
The project would be located within the existing footprint of the RWRF, which is located in the far southwestern corner of the City. The RWRF is surrounded on all sides by existing agricultural lands. The RWRF has a City of Fresno General Plan land use designation of “Public Facility – Wastewater Treatment Facility” (City of Fresno 2017) and a City of Fresno zoning designation of “PI – Public and Institutional – Public and Institutional” (City of Fresno 2020a).
3.11.2 Methodology
Evaluation of potential land use impacts are based on a review of documents pertaining to the proposed project, including the General Plan, and Fresno’s Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance.
3.11.3 Environmental Impact Analysis
This section discusses potential impacts concerning land use and planning associated with the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where necessary.
Impact LU-1 Physically divide an established community? Impact Analysis
Construction and operation of the new waste gas flares would occur within the existing RWRF which does not contain any established communities or other structures intended for human habitation.
The proposed project would not physically divide and established community. There would be no impact.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.84 Level of Significance
No Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact LU-2 Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Impact Analysis
The RWRF has a City of Fresno General Plan land use designation of “Public Facility – Wastewater Treatment Facility” (City of Fresno 2017). The construction and operation of the new waste gas flares would be consistent with the current operation of at the RWRF and would not result in any changes to the existing General Plan land use designations at the site. The RWRF has a City of Fresno zoning designation of “PI – Public and Institutional – Public and Institutional” (City of Fresno 2020a). The construction and operation of the new waste gas flares would be consistent with this zoning designation and would not require any zoning amendments or variances. The proposed project would be constructed entirely within the existing RWRF footprint and would not result in any increases in exiting wastewater treatment capacity at the site, or otherwise result in confliction with existing uses at the site.
The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land-use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the proposed project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; there is no impact.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
No Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.85 3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan, or other land use plan?
3.12.1 Environmental Setting
According to the General Plan EIR, mineral resources within the City are largely limited to areas along the San Joaquin River Corridor. The DOC classifies lands along these areas as Mineral Resources Zones. The proposed project area is not located within this area and urbanized areas such as the RWRF are not known or classified as containing mineral resources (City of Fresno 2020b).
3.12.2 Methodology
The following analysis is based on review of the General Plan and General Plan EIR.
The following impact discussions consider the impacts of the proposed project related to mineral resources.
3.12.3 Environmental Impact Analysis
This section discusses potential impacts on mineral resources associated with the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where necessary.
Impact MIN-1 Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Impact Analysis
According to the General Plan EIR and the DOC, the only known mineral resource areas within the City area are largely located within the San Joaquin River Corridor. The RWRF is not located within the San Joaquin River Corridor, and therefore is not in an area known to contain mineral resources. The existing RWRF is a highly developed site that is used for wastewater treatment and does not contain any mineral resource extraction or preservation activities.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.86 The proposed project would not result in the in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state; there would be no impact.
Level of Significance
No Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact MIN-2 Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Impact Analysis
As mentioned under Impact MIN-1, the project site is not identified in the General Plan or by the DOC as containing valuable mineral resources.
The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site and no impact would occur.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
No Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.87 3.13 NOISE
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
3.13.1 Environmental Setting
Noise Fundamentals and Terminology
Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound that annoys or disturbs people and potentially causes an adverse psychological or physiological effect on human health.
Because noise is an environmental pollutant that can interfere with human activities, evaluation of noise is necessary when considering the environmental impacts of a proposed project.
Sound is mechanical energy (vibration) transmitted by pressure waves over a medium such as air or water. Sound is characterized by various parameters that include the rate of oscillation of sound waves (frequency), the speed of propagation, and the pressure level or energy content (amplitude). In particular, the sound pressure level is the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient (existing) sound level. Although the decibel (dB) scale, a logarithmic scale, is used to quantify sound intensity, it does not accurately describe how sound intensity is perceived by human hearing. The perceived loudness of sound is dependent upon many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content. The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies in the entire spectrum, so noise measurements are weighted more heavily for frequencies to which humans are sensitive in a process called A-weighting, written as dBA and referred to as A-weighted decibels. There is a strong correlation between A-weighted sound levels (expressed as dBA) and community response to noise. For this reason, the A-weighted sound level has become the standard tool of
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.88 environmental noise assessment. Table 3.13-1 defines sound measurements and other terminology used in this section, and Table 3.13-2 summarizes typical A-weighted sound levels for different noise sources.
Table 3.13-1: Definition of Sound Measurement
Sound Measurements Definition
Decibel (dB) A unitless measure of sound on a logarithmic scale, which indicates the squared ratio of sound pressure amplitude to a reference sound pressure amplitude. The reference pressure is 20 micro-pascals.
A-Weighted Decibel (dBA) An overall frequency-weighted sound level in decibels that approximates the frequency response of the human ear.
C-Weighted Decibel (dBC) The sound pressure level in decibels as measured using the C- weighting filter network. The C-weighting is very close to an unweighted or flat response. C-weighting is only used in special cases when low-frequency noise is of particular importance. A comparison of measured A- and C- weighted level gives an indication of low frequency content.
Maximum Sound Level (Lmax) The maximum sound level measured during the measurement period.
Minimum Sound Level (Lmin) The minimum sound level measured during the measurement period.
Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) The equivalent steady state sound level that in a stated period of time would contain the same acoustical energy.
Percentile-Exceeded Sound Level
(Lxx)
The sound level exceeded xx % of a specific time period. L10 is the sound level exceeded 10% of the time. L90 is the sound level exceeded 90% of the time. L90 is often considered to be representative of the background noise level in a given area.
Day-Night Level (Ldn) The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24- hour period, with 10 dB added to the A-weighted sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
Community Noise Equivalent
Level (CNEL)
The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24- hour period with 5 dB added to the A-weighted sound levels occurring during the period from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 10 dB added to the A- weighted sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
Peak Particle Velocity
(Peak Velocity or PPV)
A measurement of ground vibration defined as the maximum speed (measured in inches per second) at which a particle in the ground is moving relative to its inactive state. PPV is usually expressed in inches/second.
Frequency: Hertz (Hz) The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.89 Table 3.13-2: Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels
Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities
Jet flyover at 1,000 Feet
Gas lawnmower at 3 Feet
Diesel truck at 50 Feet at 50 MPH
Noisy urban area, daytime
Gas lawnmower, 100 Feet
Commercial area
Heavy traffic at 300 Feet
Quiet urban daytime
Quiet urban nighttime
Quiet suburban nighttime
Quiet rural nighttime
-110-
-100-
-90-
-80-
-70-
-60-
-50-
-40-
-30-
-20-
-10-
-0-
Rock band
Food blender at 3 Feet
Garbage Disposal at 3 Feet
Vacuum Cleaner at 10 Feet
Normal Speech at 3 Feet
Large business office
Dishwasher in next room
Theater, large conference room
(Background)
Library
Bedroom at night, concert hall
(Background)
Broadcast/recording studio
Source: City of Fresno 2020b
With respect to how humans perceive and react to changes in noise levels, a 1-dBA increase is imperceptible, a 3-dBA increase is barely perceptible, a 5-dBA increase is clearly noticeable, and a 10-dBA increase is subjectively perceived as approximately twice as loud (FHWA 2017). These subjective reactions to changes in noise levels were developed based on test subjects’ reactions to changes in the levels of steady-state pure tones or broadband noise and to changes in levels of a given noise source. These statistical indicators are thought to be most applicable to noise levels in the range of 50 to 70 dBA, as this is the usual range of voice and interior noise levels. Numbers of agencies and municipalities have developed or adopted noise level standards, consistent with these and other similar studies to help prevent annoyance and to protect against the degradation of the existing noise environment.
Different types of measurements are used to characterize the time-varying nature of sound. These measurements include the equivalent sound level (Leq), the minimum and maximum sound levels (Lmin and Lmax), percentile-exceeded sound levels (such
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.90 as L10, L20), the day-night sound level (Ldn), and the community noise equivalent level (CNEL). Ldn and CNEL values differ by less than 1 dB. As a matter of practice, Ldn and CNEL values are considered to be equivalent and are treated as such in this assessment.
For a point source such as a stationary compressor or construction equipment, sound attenuates based on geometry at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance. For a line source such as free-flowing traffic on a freeway, sound attenuates at a rate of 3 dB per doubling of distance. Atmospheric conditions including wind, temperature gradients, and humidity can change how sound propagates over distance and can affect the level of sound received at a given location. The degree to which the ground surface absorbs acoustical energy also affects sound propagation. Sound that travels over an acoustically absorptive surface, such as grass, attenuates at a greater rate than sound that travels over a hard surface, such as pavement. The increased attenuation is typically in the range of 1–2 dB per doubling of distance. Barriers, such as buildings and topography that block the line of sight between a source and receiver, also increase the attenuation of sound over distance.
Decibel Addition
Because decibels are logarithmic units, sound pressure levels cannot be added or subtracted through ordinary arithmetic. On the dB scale, a doubling of sound energy corresponds to a 3-dB increase. In other words, when two identical sources are each producing sound of the same loudness, their combined sound level at a given distance would be 3 dB higher than one source under the same conditions. For example, if one source produces a sound pressure level of 70 dBA, two identical sources would combine to produce 73 dBA. The cumulative sound level of any number of sources can be determined using decibel addition.
Vibration Standards
Vibration is like noise such that noise involves a source, a transmission path, and a receiver. While related to noise, vibration differs in that noise is generally considered to be pressure waves transmitted through air, whereas vibration usually consists of the excitation of a structure or surface. As with noise, vibration consists of an amplitude and frequency. A person’s perception to vibration depends on their individual sensitivity to vibration, as well as the amplitude and frequency of the source and the response of the system that is vibrating.
Vibration can be measured in terms of acceleration, velocity, or displacement. A common practice is to monitor vibration measures in terms of peak particle velocities (PPV) in inches per second (in/sec p.p.v.). Standards pertaining to perception as well as damage to structures have been developed for vibration levels defined in terms of PPV.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.91 Operation of heavy construction equipment, particularly pile driving and other impact devices such as pavement breakers, create seismic waves that radiate along the surface of the earth and downward into the earth. These surface waves can be felt as ground vibration. Vibration from operation of this equipment can result in effects ranging from annoyance of people to damage of structures. Varying geology and distance will result in different vibration levels containing different frequencies and displacements. In all cases, vibration amplitudes will decrease with increasing distance.
Perceptible groundborne vibration is generally limited to areas within a few hundred feet of construction activities. As seismic waves travel outward from a vibration source, they excite the particles of rock and soil through which they pass and cause them to oscillate. The actual distance that these particles move is usually only a few ten- thousandths to a few thousandths of an inch. The rate or velocity (in/sec p.p.v) at which these particles move is the commonly accepted descriptor of the vibration amplitude, referred to as the PPV.
Sensitive Receptors
Some land uses are more tolerant of noise than others. For example, schools, hospitals, churches, and residences are considered to be more sensitive to noise intrusion than are commercial or industrial activities. Ambient noise levels can also affect the perceived desirability or livability of a development.
The nearest residential unit to the project site is located approximately 2,600 feet to the north on S Polk Avenue (i.e., approximately 1,600 feet from the northern-most edge of the RWRF, approximately 2,500 feet from the actual work location-site of existing and proposed flares).
3.13.1 Methodology
The following analysis is based on review of the General Plan and General Plan EIR.
The following impact discussions consider the impacts of the proposed project related to noise.
3.13.2 Environmental Impact Analysis
This section discusses the potential impacts on noise associated with the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where necessary.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.92 Impact NOI-1 Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Impact Analysis
Construction of the proposed project would occur over approximately 220 days and would include excavation and grading, building construction, and architectural coating.
Noise impacts would typically occur during the excavation and grading construction phase and have the potential to create the highest levels of noise. As such, the grading phase represents the worst-case condition for short-term construction noise levels that may occur at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors.
Construction noise is difficult to quantify because of the many variables involved, including the specific equipment types, size of equipment used, percentage of time each piece is in operation, condition of each piece of equipment, and number of pieces that would operate on the site. Construction equipment produce maximum noise levels when equipment is operating under full power conditions (i.e., the equipment engine at maximum speed). However, equipment used on construction sites typically operates under less than full power conditions, or partial power. To more accurately characterize construction-period noise levels, the average (Leq) noise level associated with each construction stage is calculated based on the quantity, type, and usage factors for each type of equipment that would be used during each construction stage. These noise levels are typically associated with multiple pieces of equipment simultaneously operating on part power. Excavation, grading, building construction, and architectural coating phases would utilize typical construction equipment, such as a backhoe, compactor, grader, crane, and pick-up trucks. As shown in Table 3.13-3 below, the maximum sound level (Lmax) construction noise levels from the typical construction equipment would vary from approximately 44 dBA to 55 dBA at a distance of 1,600 feet (i.e. approximate distance from the nearest sensitive receptor) (FHWA 2020).
Table 3.13-3: Summary of Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model at Nearest Sensitive Receptor
Source Distance to Nearest
Sensitive Receptor
Sound Level
(Lmax)
Backhoe 1,600 feet 47.5
Compactor 1,600 feet 53.1
Grader 1,600 feet 54.9
Crane 1,600 feet 50.4
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.93 Source Distance to Nearest
Sensitive Receptor
Sound Level
(Lmax)
Pickup truck 1,600 feet 44.9
Source: FHWA 2006
Pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code Section 10-109, construction activities may occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays and are prohibited on Sundays. These permitted hours of construction recognize that construction activities undertaken during daytime hours are a typical part of living in an urban environment and do not cause a significant disruption. All construction activities associated with the proposed project would occur within the City’s Municipal Code standards. Therefore, given the sporadic and variable nature of proposed project construction, the implementation of time limits specified in the City’s Municipal Code, and the distance from the nearest sensitive receptor (i.e. 1,600 feet), short-term construction noise impacts would be less than significant.
Operationally, the proposed project would not introduce substantial new noise to the area. The new waste gas flares would be enclosed and would be consistent with the noise sources at the RWRF. In addition, the flares would be manufactured to meet Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) standards, which limit worker exposure to 85 dBA at 3 feet. Noise attenuates (decreases) with distance. The typical atmospheric attenuation rate for point source noise is 6 dBA per doubling of the distance Given the intervening distance to the nearest noise-sensitive receptor, offsite impacts would be in compliance with City municipal code standards. Therefore, there would be no operational impact associated with generation of noise in excess of local standards.
Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; the impact would be less than significant.
Level of Significance
Less Than Significant Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.94 Impact NOI-2 Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Impact Analysis
Vibration refers to ground borne noise and perceptible motion. Typical sources of ground borne vibration are construction activities (e.g., blasting, pile driving, and operating heavy-duty earthmoving equipment), steel-wheeled trains, and occasional traffic on rough roads. The FTA provides guidelines for maximum-acceptable vibration criteria for different types of land uses. These guidelines allow 80 vibration decibel (VdB) for residential uses and buildings where people normally sleep (FTA 2018).
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground borne vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type.
Construction equipment such as air compressors, light trucks, hydraulic loaders, etc., generate little or no ground vibration. Occasionally large, loaded trucks can cause perceptible vibration levels at close proximity. The FTA guidelines of 80 VdB for sensitive land uses provide the basis for determining the relative significance of potential proposed project related vibration impacts. The proposed project does not included components to generate excessive vibration and the nearest sensitive receptor to the proposed project is located over 1,600 feet from the RWRF. Project construction would not include activities such as blasting or pile driving that would cause excessive ground borne vibration and there are no near enough sensitive receptors such that vibration levels at the RWRF could be felt.
The proposed project would not result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; no vibration impacts would occur.
Level of Significance
No Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact NOI-3 For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Impact Analysis
The project site is not located within 2 miles of a public airport. The nearest airports to the project site are the Bland Field Airport and the Fresno Chandler Executive Airport, located approximately 7.3 miles west and 4.6 miles northeast of the project site, respectively.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.95 The project site does not fall within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport and would not result in exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. No impact would occur.
Level of Significance
No Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.96 This page intentionally left blank.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.97 3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
3.14.1 Environmental Setting
The proposed project is located within the City of Fresno, which as of January 1, 2020, had an estimated population of 545,769 (California Department of Finance 2020).
According to the General Plan EIR, the City’s population is estimated to reach 921,057 by 2056 (City of Fresno 2020b). In addition, the General Plan EIR states that currently, there are approximately 398,100 jobs in Fresno County, and there will be an estimated 533,812 jobs in Fresno County by 2056, with a 1.18 jobs per housing unit ratio (City of Fresno 2020b).
3.14.2 Methodology
The evaluation of potential population, housing, and employment impacts of the proposed project is based on review of the General Plan, General Plan EIR, and population data compiled by the California Department of Finance. The following impact discussions consider the effects of the proposed project related to employment, population, and housing in the City.
3.14.3 Environmental Impact Analysis
This section discusses potential impacts on population and housing associated with the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where necessary.
Impact POP-1 Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Impact Analysis
The proposed project does not include the construction of new residential dwelling units and would not permanently increase the City’s residential population. Employment
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.98 opportunities would be limited to construction workers during the temporary construction phase. No increase in employees at the RWRF is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Construction of the proposed project would require the employment of approximately 15 construction workers at peak construction periods. Construction workers would be at the project site temporarily during the construction phase and would not impact the City’s population. It is anticipated that the construction workforce would already reside in the City or in nearby cities, and because of the temporary nature are not expected to relocate their households because of project construction. As such, temporary project construction activities are not expected to increase the demand for housing.
The proposed project would not induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure); the impact would be less than significant.
Level of Significance
Less Than Significant Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact POP-2 Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Impact Analysis
The RWRF does not include any existing housing and the project would not require expansion of the existing RWRF such that displacement of existing people or housing would occur. All construction activities would occur within the existing RWRF and there would be no impact related to displacement of substantial numbers of existing people or housing.
The proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere; no impact would occur.
Level of Significance
No Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.99 3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services:
• Fire protection?
• Police protection?
• Schools?
• Parks?
• Other public facilities?
3.15.1 Environmental Setting
Fire Protection
The City of Fresno Fire Department (FFD) provides fire suppression and emergency medical services to more than 545,000 residents in a 325 square-mile area (City of Fresno 2020b). The 2018 FFD staffing consisted of 334 sworn firefighting personnel, 18 sworn non‐safety personnel, and 23 civilian positions. Daily staffing for the FFD service area consists of a minimum of 80 on‐duty firefighters. In 2018, depending on the specific service area, FFD was able to respond to structure fires within four minutes 72 percent of the time, and to calls for medical aid within four minutes 64 percent of the time (City of Fresno 2020b). The nearest fire station to the proposed project site is Fire Station 22, which is located approximately 2.2 miles northwest of the RWRF, at 806 S Garfield Avenue, Fresno, CA 93706.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.100
Police Protection
The City contains numerous agencies that have jurisdiction over police protection services, including: The City of Fresno Police Department (FPD), Fresno County Sheriff’s Department, California Highway Patrol, Fresno State Police Department, and Fresno City College Police Department. The FPD had staffing levels in 2018 of 825 sworn officers and a staffing ratio of 1.5 officers per 1,000 residents (City of Fresno 2020b). The nearest police station to the proposed project is the Southwest Station, which is located approximately 5.3 miles northeast of the proposed project site at 1211 Fresno Street, Fresno California 93706.
Schools
The City is served by five school districts including the Fresno Unified School District, the Clovis Unified School District, the Central Unified School District, the Sanger Unified School District, and the Washington Unified School District. The nearest school to the proposed project site is West Fresno Elementary School, which is located approximately 5.7 miles to the east of the project site.
Parks
The City owns and administers more than 80 public parks, trails, regional parks, neighborhood parks, educational facilities, community pools, splash parks, and dual-use ponding basins. Within the City as a whole, there are over 9,000 acres of open space areas, with 1,893 acres as ponding basins (City of Fresno 2020b). The General Plan has a parkland standard of at least three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents (General Plan Policy POSS-1-a).
3.15.2 Methodology
The following analysis is based on a review of documents pertaining to the proposed project, including the General Plan, General Plan EIR, and Section 2.0 Project Description of this ISMND. The following impact discussions consider the effects of the proposed project related to public services in the City.
3.15.3 Environmental Impact Analysis
This section discusses potential impacts on public services associated with the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where necessary.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.101
Impact PUB-1 Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in orde r to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Impact Analysis
Fire Protection
Fire service is currently provided to the project site by FFD, however, onsite personnel at the RWRF are regularly trained to put out and contain any fires within the facility. As required by the California Fire Code and ongoing operations at the RWRF, the proposed project would be required to include appropriate fire protection measures during construction activities. However, the lack of vegetation and highly developed nature of the site would likely prevent and fires from occurring during construction activities. Once constructed, the new waste gas flares would be enclosed, and would blend with the existing operations within the RWRF. Therefore, there would be no need for new or expanded fire department facilities to serve the proposed project. There would be no impact.
Police Protection
The proposed project would not result in any permanent increase the demand for police protection services beyond what currently exists at the site. The construction and operation of the new waste gas flares would be constructed within the existing RWRF which is fenced and not open to the public. As discussed in Section 3.13, Population and Housing, the proposed project would not result in an increased population and therefore there would be no need for increased or physically altered police protection services in the area. Therefore, the project would have no impact related to the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.102
Schools
The proposed project would not involve any increases in employees or development of housing such that an increase in school aged children would occur. Therefore, there would be no impact to schools in the area as a result of the proposed project.
Parks
The proposed project does not involve a residential component and would not introduce a new population that would directly create additional demands on existing or planned park facilities. Therefore, the project would not significantly affect the City’s parkland ratios and would not result in the need for new or expanded park facilities. No impact would occur.
Other Public Facilities
As previously discussed, the proposed project would not generate a residential population that would substantially increase the demand for libraries or other public facilities. Therefore, impacts to other public facilities would be less than significant.
Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services.
Level of Significance
No Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.103
3.16 RECREATION
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
3.16.1 Environmental Setting
The City maintains approximately 1,617 acres of open space lands as well as other built recreational facilities such as pools and splash parks, and 115 acres of paths and trails (City of Fresno 2014). The nearest public park to the project site is Kearney Park which is located approximately 1.2 miles northwest of the project site.
3.16.2 Methodology
The following analysis is based on a review of the General Plan and the General Plan EIR. The following impact discussions consider the effect of the proposed project as it relates to recreation.
3.16.3 Environmental Impact Analysis
This section discusses potential impacts related to recreational facilities associated with the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where necessary.
Impact REC-1 Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Impact Analysis
The proposed project would involve the construction and operation of two new waste gas flares at the existing RWRF. The proposed project would not include a residential component and would not permanently increase the City’s residential population or result in other indirect impacts which could result in population growth. Any employees needed to construct the proposed project would likely come from the surrounding area and would have minimal time to access any surrounding recreational facilities.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.104
The proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; there would be no impacts related to parks and recreation facilities.
Level of Significance
No Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact REC-2 Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Impact Analysis
The proposed project would involve the construction and operation of two new waste gas flares at the existing RWRF. The proposed project would not include the construction or expansion of park facilities nor would the proposed project result in direct or indirect increases in population such that the construction or expansion of recreational facilities would be required.
The proposed project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment; there would be no impact related to recreational facilities.
Level of Significance
No Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.105
3.17 TRANSPORTATION
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities?
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
3.17.1 Environmental Setting
The City’s roadway network is a traditional grid-based network of north/south and east/west streets, except for the Downtown area, where the grid-based network is northeast/southwest.
The project area is located south of Jensen Avenue a two-lane arterial and bordered by South Chateau Fresno Avenue to the west and Polk Avenue to the east, both County of Fresno local roadways.
The City operates the Fresno Area Express (FAX), its primary transportation service provider. The FAX fixed‐route system integrates with the City of Clovis’ fixed‐route system and other incorporated cities within the County through the Fresno County Rural Transit Agency (FRCTA) to serve the region. The FAX fixed‐route system comprises routes that typically follow many of Fresno’s major roadways, which are generally spaced with a one‐half mile separation. There are no public transit stops in the vicinity of the project area.
3.17.2 Methodology
The following analysis is based on a review of documents pertaining to the project site, including the City’s General Plan, General Plan EIR, and the City of Fresno Municipal Code.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.106
The proposed project’s anticipated traffic was compared to the City’s screening thresholds for VMT.
3.17.3 Environmental Impact Analysis
This section discusses potential impacts on transportation associated with the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where necessary.
Impact TRANS-1 Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance , or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Impact Analysis
There are no transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities in the project area that would be affected by the project’s construction traffic, as such no impacts to those facilities would occur.
The proposed project would result in limited construction vehicle trips associated with construction worker commutes, equipment, and material deliveries. The proposed project would have a maximum of up to 15 workers at its peak construction period, which would result in 30 roundtrips per day, a total of 6 pickup trips per day, and 46 total hauling truck trips for the duration of the construction. The proposed project would not require any road closures and the limited traffic would not result in any substantial delays to roadway operations.
The proposed project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Potential impacts to the circulation system would be less than significant.
Level of Significance
Less Than Significant Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact TRANS-2 Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Vehicle Miles Traveled
Senate Bill (SB) 743 requires that relevant CEQA analysis of transportation impacts be conducted using a metric known as vehicle miles traveled (VMT) instead of Level of Service (LOS). VMT measures how much actual auto travel (additional miles driven) a proposed project would create on California roads. If the project adds excessive car travel onto our roads, the project may cause a significant transportation impact.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.107
The State CEQA Guidelines were amended to implement SB 743, by adding Section 15064.3. Among its provisions, Section 15064.3 confirms that, except with respect to transportation projects, a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact. Therefore, LOS measures of impacts on traffic facilities is no longer a relevant CEQA criteria for transportation impacts.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(4) states that “[a] lead agency has discretion to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revision to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.”
On June 25, 2020, the City of Fresno adopted CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds, dated June 25, 2020, pursuant to Senate Bill 743 to be effective of July 1, 2020. The thresholds described therein are referred to herein as the City of Fresno VMT Thresholds. The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds document was prepared and adopted consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.3 and 15064.7. The December 2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory) published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), was utilized as a reference and guidance document in the preparation of the Fresno VMT Thresholds.
The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds adopted a screening standard and criteria that can be used to screen out qualified projects that meet the adopted criteria from needing to prepare a detailed VMT analysis.
The proposed project is not a land use or transportation project. The proposed project would not result in an increase in operational vehicle trips. The only increase would be associated with construction vehicle trips from workers and equipment and materials delivery; therefore, a qualitative analysis is the most appropriate.
Consistent with criteria 4, the City’s VMT Thresholds include screening criteria consistent with OPR’s Technical Advisory that suggests projects which generate low traffic volumes defined as 110 average daily trips (ADT) would be presumed to have a less than significant impact because the project generates a low volume of daily traffic.
The viability of substituting transport of construction workers, materials, and equipment by alternative modes of transit is extremely limited and generally infeasible in a rural area like the project site. The proposed project would result in limited daily construction
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.108
trips well below the 110 trips per day presumed to be less than significant. The proposed project would have a maximum of up to 15 workers at its peak construction period, which would result in 30 roundtrips per day, a total of 6 pick-up trips per day, and 46 total hauling truck trips for the duration of the construction. The proposed project’s construction trips would average a maximum of 40 trips per day. Assuming the default trip length from the air quality modeling of 10.8 miles for worker trips, 7.3 miles for vendor/pick-up trips, and 20 miles for truck hauling, the total project VMT on an average day would be 448 miles. Because the proposed project will average a maximum of 40 trips per day, the project would not exceed 110 ADT, it would not significantly increase VMT because the project will generate a low volume of daily traffic.
The proposed project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b). The project will result in a less than significant impact concerning consistency with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b).
Level of Significance
Less Than Significant Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact TRANS-3 Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Impact Analysis
The proposed project would not involve any roadway alterations. Construction of the project would involve the hauling of heavy equipment and machinery along public roadways, which could create a hazard to the public by impeding traffic or limiting motorists’ line of sight on roadways. The hazard is highest when vehicles and equipment interact with the public, such as when entering a public ROW while exiting a construction area. This risk could be potentially significant if trucks and construction vehicles were to pull out in front of roadway traffic at a dramatically slower speed or if it were to require traffic to slow suddenly and create potential road hazards. However, the roadway near the facility, Jensen Avenue is not identified as a roadway with high traffic volumes by the County of Fresno or projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service in the future (reflection of traffic congestion/unacceptable traffic volumes). As such the increase in construction traffic on the adjacent roadway would not result in a significant impact. Additionally, compliance with Caltrans standard specifications applicable to licensing, size, weight, load, and roadway encroachment hauling of any oversized loads, including heavy-equipment, would be required during mobilization, construction activities, or demobilization. Impacts would be less than significant.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.109
The proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); the impact is less than significant.
Level of Significance
Less Than Significant Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact TRANS-4 Result in inadequate emergency access?
Impact Analysis
Construction and operation of the proposed project would not affect streets or otherwise affect emergency access routes. The proposed project would be designed to incorporate all required standards to ensure the project would not result in hazardous design features or inadequate emergency access to the project site or areas surrounding the project site.
The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access; the impact would be less than significant.
Level of Significance
Less Than Significant Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.110
This page intentionally left blank.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.111
3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined by Public
Resources Code section 21047 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural landscape that
is geographically defined in terms of the
size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe, and that
is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
ii. A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource
Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance
of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
3.18.1 Environmental Setting
Refer to Section 3.5 Cultural Resources for a description of the environmental setting.
This section describes potential tribal cultural resources at the project site and includes a preliminary analysis of potential impacts to these resources from the construction and operation of project facilities.
3.18.2 Methodology
A search at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center of the CHRIS (File Number 20-394), located at California State University Bakersfield, California, was completed on November 9, 2020. As an affiliate of the State of California Office of Historic Preservation, the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center is the official State repository of cultural resource records and reports for the region that includes
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.112
Fresno County. The search included the entire project site as well as a one-quarter mile buffer around the project site (referred to as “project area” throughout this section).
Local tribes or tribal representatives are the authority on identifying tribal cultural resources. Stantec contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on November 17, 2020 to request a search of the Sacred Lands File and a list of Native American contacts that might have knowledge of tribal cultural resources within the project area. The request included a description of the proposed project as well as a location map. Letters were sent to Native Americans listed by the NAHC on November 20, 2020. As of March 26, 2021, no response from Native Americans has been received.
3.18.3 Environmental Impact Analysis
This section discusses potential impacts on tribal cultural resources associated with the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where necessary.
Impact TRIB-1 Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significanc e of a tribal cultural resource, defined by Public Resources Code Section 21047 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Impact Analysis
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)
The archival records search performed as part of the cultural resources analysis found no known tribal cultural resources within or near the study area that are listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined by Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k).
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.113
The previously disturbed nature of the project site makes the identification of previously unidentified tribal cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area unlikely. However, subsurface construction activities such as trenching, and grading associated with the proposed project could potentially damage or destroy previously undiscovered unique tribal cultural resources. General Plan MEIR Mitigation Measure CUL-1 is incorporated into the project requiring implementation of standard inadvertent discovery procedures to reduce potential impacts to previously undiscovered subsurface unique tribal cultural resources.
With the implementation of General Plan MEIR Mitigation Measure CUL-1, potential impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of a the resource to a California Native American tribe.
The records search prepared for the project at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System CHRIS (File Number 20-394) did not identify any resources that would qualify under subdivision (c) of the Public Resource Code Section 5024.1. The City of Fresno as the lead agency has not identified the site as a historic resource under local criteria. The NAHC Sacred Lands Files were searched and did not identify any potential resources. Under AB 52, tribal representative with potential local knowledge were consulted via letters documenting the proposed project and the project location to determine if any tribal resources were present. No responses were received.
Given that no historic resources were found through records searches or through consultation with tribal representatives, the proposed project would not have an impact on known resources. Subsurface construction activities have the potential to uncover previously undiscovered resources, therefore General Plan MEIR Mitigation Measure CUL-1 is incorporated into the project requiring implementation of standard inadvertent discovery procedures to reduce potential impacts to previously undiscovered subsurface unique tribal cultural resources.
Conclusion
The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined by Public Resources Code Section 21047. The impact is less than significant.
Level of Significance
Less Than Significant Impact.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.114
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure CUL-1 is required. Refer to Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, for complete details pertaining to this mitigation measures.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.115
3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Require or result in the construction of new
or expanded water, wastewater treatment
or stormwater drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or relocation of
which could cause significant
environmental impacts?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals?
e) Comply with federal, State, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
3.19.1 Environmental Setting
Wastewater
The City maintains and owns the local sewage collection system and is responsible for the collection and conveyance of wastewater to the Fresno-Clovis RWRF and the North Fresno Water Reclamation Facility (NFWRF). The City's wastewater collection system consists of more than 1,500 miles of gravity and pressure flow pipelines. The Fresno Clovis RWRF has a permitted capacity of 91.5 mgd as an annual monthly average flow and a 101 mgd as a maximum monthly average flow. The NFWRF has a permitted capacity of 0.71 mgd as an average monthly flow and 1.07 mgd as a maximum daily flow (City of Fresno 2020b).
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.116
Water Supply
The City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities provides potable water to the majority of the City, as well as some users outside of the City’s limits. The primary source of water for the City comes from groundwater stored in an aquifer, however, additional surface water is delivered via the Northeast Surface Water Treatment Facility (NESWTF). According to the General Plan EIR, the NESWTF and the T-3 Surface Water Treatment Facility delivers approximately 28,347 acre-feet (AF) of treated surface water to the City and between 2011 and 2015 the City pumped and average of 111,522 AF/year of groundwater (City of Fresno 2020b, City of Fresno 2016).
Solid Waste
The Solid Waste Division of the City of Fresno provides curbside collection of residential waste. Garbage disposed of in the City is taken to Cedar Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station and once it is sorted, non-recyclable waste is loaded and taken to the American Avenue Landfill. The American Avenue Landfill has a maximum permitted capacity of 32,700,000 cubic yards and a remaining capacity of 29,358,535 cubic yards, with an estimated closure date of August 31, 2031. The maximum permitted throughput is 2,200 tons per day (City of Fresno 2020b).
Stormwater System
Stormwater collection and disposal in the City is overseen by the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD). FMFCD has more than 170 urban watersheds that collect stormwater runoff and dispose of the runoff in retention basins, local canals, or the San Joaquin River. The flood control system consists of three dams and reservoirs, five detention basins, one diversion channel, and up to 175 miles of rural stream channels.
3.19.2 Methodology
The following analysis is based on a review of documents pertaining to the project site, including the General Plan, General Plan EIR, 2014 Fresno Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan, the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), and Section 2.0 Project Description of this ISMND. The following impact discussions consider the effects of the proposed project related to utilities and service systems in the City.
3.19.3 Environmental Impact Analysis
This section discusses potential impacts on utilities and service systems associated with the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where necessary.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.117
Impact UTIL-1 Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Impact Analysis
Wastewater Treatment
The additional Waste Gas Flares being constructed are designed to accommodate future wastewater design flows through the 2030 calendar year in accordance with City’s Sewer and Wastewater Management Plans. The RWRF uses waste gas for producing electrical power and for heating the water boiler units. Excess gas is sent to the Flare. The current flare is sized to accommodate the current output to the flare after other beneficial uses of the gas. In 2016, the RWRF power generator system was decommissioned which ceased production of on-site electricity. This resulted in an increase of waste gas to the single flare. The two new flares will satisfy current capacity needs and will accommodate future planned growth at the RWRF. The driving need for the two flares is the under capacity of the current flare unit. The construction and operation of the new waste gas flares, and the environmental effects therein, have been analyzed as part of this document. As discussed throughout this document, all potentially significant impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project would be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation incorporated. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact related to construction and operation of the new waste gas flares.
Water
The proposed project consists of the construction and operation of two new waste gas flares at the existing RWRF which would not include any increases in water use beyond what currently exists at the RWRF. Construction of the new waste gas flares would require limited water use for watering of exposed soils; however, this would not result in any construction or alternation of existing water services or infrastructure. Therefore, the proposed project would, therefore, be adequately served by the City’s existing infrastructure would not require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
Stormwater Drainage
The proposed project site currently contains adequate stormwater drainage to convey stormwater away from the existing RWRF structures and facilities. The new waste gas flares would be constructed adjacent to the existing waste gas flare and would include similar drainage as what currently exists at the site. No increases in stormwater
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.118
drainage or runoff would occur as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, the impacts associated with stormwater drainage facilities would be less than significant.
Electric Power and Natural Gas
As described under Section 3.6 Energy, PG&E is the electric and natural gas provider in the City. The proposed project would not require additional energy beyond what currently exists at the RWRF. The waste gas flares would operate based on fuel provided from the byproduct of digester gas produced by the WWTP process. All additional infrastructure associated with the waste gas flare would be subject to the requirements of the California Green Building Code and Title 24, which would ensure energy efficiency. No new expanded facilities would be required for electric and natural gas facilities that could potentially cause a significant environmental impact.
Telecommunications
Telecommunication services are provided by AT&T to the project site. No increases or alterations to existing telecommunication would be required as a result of the proposed project. There would be no impact.
Conclusion
The proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects; the impact is less than significant.
Level of Significance
Less Than Significant Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact UTIL-2 Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Impact Analysis
The 2015 UWMP calculates the City’s past, current, and projected water use and water supply through future build out as identified in the General Plan. According to the UWMP, the future water supply would be adequate to offset future water demands from planned development during normal, single-dry, and multi-dry years (City of Fresno 2016). The proposed project would not include any increases in operational or long-term water use beyond what currently exists at the RWRF. Therefore, there would be no impact related to water supply.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.119
The proposed project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years; no impact would occur.
Level of Significance
No Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact UTIL-3 Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacit y to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Impact Analysis
As discussed under UTIL-1 above, the proposed project would not include any increases to the treatment capacity at the RWRF. The existing waste gas flare is not sized appropriately to meet the operational needs of the RWRF and as such, the two new low emissions flares would serve as the primary flares for the RWRF in order to meet the operational needs of the RWRF. Therefore, there would be no impact related to capacity of the RWRF.
The proposed project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments; no impact would occur.
Level of Significance
No Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact UTIL-4 Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Impact Analysis
Construction of the proposed project would involve the generation of limited amounts of construction materials and debris such as concrete and metal wastes. Construction wastes would likely be taken to the American Avenue Landfill which has a maximum permitted throughput is 2,200 tons per day or to the Cedar Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station for recyclable materials (City of Fresno 2020b). In accordance with the City’s Construction and Demolition Recycling Ordinance (Municipal Code Sec. 6-205), and Senate Bill 939, contractors would be required to recycle all applicable construction
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.120
and demolition debris, which would reduce the potential for materials to enter the landfill. Construction debris anticipated for the proposed project would be limited due to the scale and type of project. Further, once constructed, the proposed project would not result in any long-term increases in solid waste generation. The proposed project would not be expected to generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards and would not impair attainment of solid waste reduction goals.
The proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact related to solid waste would occur.
Level of Significance
Less Than Significant Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact UTIL-5 Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Impact Analysis
The proposed project would include minor amounts of construction waste. State Assembly Bill 939 requires diversion of 65 percent of construction waste materials generated during the project. Additionally, the City has a Construction and Demolition Recycling Ordinance (Municipal Code Sec. 6-205) which requires contractors to recycle construction and demolition debris. The project contractors would be required to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
The proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste; impacts would be less than significant.
Level of Significance
Less Than Significant Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.121
3.20 WILDFIRE
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
3.20.1 Environmental Setting
CAL FIRE does not identify the City in a local or state very high fire hazard severity zone (CAL FIRE 2018). According to the General Plan EIR, the generally urbanized and agricultural nature of the City, the wildfire threat in the City is considered minimal (City of Fresno 2014). The proposed project is located within the existing RWRF which is a highly urbanized area with minimal vegetation.
3.20.2 Methodology
The following analysis is based on a review of documents pertaining to the project site, including the General Plan, General Plan EIR, and the CAL FIRE and Resource Assessment Program mapping of Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Areas (SRA). The following impact discussions consider the effects of the proposed project related to wildfire.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.122
3.20.3 Environmental Impact Analysis
This section discusses potential wildfire impacts on the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where necessary.
Impact WFIRE-1 Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Impact Analysis
The project site is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. The proposed project would not impair and adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
The proposed project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; no impact would occur.
Level of Significance
No Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact WFIRE-2 Due to slope, prevailing winds, and oth er factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Impact Analysis
The topography of the project site is relatively flat with the elevation ranging from 253 feet to 257 feet above mean sea level. The project site is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. The proposed project would not expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire.
The proposed project would not expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire due to slope, prevailing winds and other factors; no impact would occur.
Level of Significance
No Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.123
Impact WFIRE-3 Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines o r other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Impact Analysis
The project site is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones.
The proposed project would not require the installation of or maintenance of associated infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. No impact would occur.
Level of Significance
No Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact WFIRE-4 Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post- fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Impact Analysis
The topography of the project site is relatively flat with the elevation ranging from 253 feet to 257 feet above mean sea level. The project site is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones.
The proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. No impact would occur.
Level of Significance
No Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.124
This page intentionally left blank.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.125
3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal, or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulative
considerable? (“Cumulative considerable”
means that the incremental impacts of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the impacts of past
projects, the impacts of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future
Projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental
impacts which will cause substantial
adverse impacts on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Impact Analysis
As evaluated in this ISMND, the project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. General Plan MEIR Mitigation Measures BIO-1, CUL-1, and CUL-4 are included herein to lessen the significance of potential impacts to special- status species and habitats as well as the impacts of inadvertent discovery of cultural resources to a less-than-significant level.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation
3.126
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulative considerable? (“Cumulative considerable” means that the incremental impacts of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the impacts of other current projects, and the impacts of probable future projects)? Impact Analysis
As described in the impact analysis in Sections 3.1 through 3.20 of this ISMND, any potentially significant impacts of the project would be reduced to a less than significant level following incorporation of the mitigation measures listed herein. Projects completed in the past have also implemented mitigation as necessary. Future projects would similarly be required to mitigate potential impacts. Accordingly, the project would not otherwise combine with impacts of related development to add considerably to any cumulative impacts in the region, and impacts would be considered less than significant. c) Does the project have environmental impacts which will cause substantial adverse impacts on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Impact Analysis
The project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. Air quality, greenhouse gasses, hazardous materials, and/or noise would have the only potential effects through which the project could have a substantial effect on human beings. However, all potential effects of the project related to air quality, greenhouse gases, noise, and hazardous materials are identified as less than significant or less than significant with the implementation of mitigation. The impact analysis included in this ISMND indicates that for all other resource areas, the project would either have no impact, no significant impact, or—for impacts that would not affect human beings—less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
References
4.1 4.0 REFERENCES
Multi-Section
City of Fresno. 2020a. Zoning Comparison Map. Website:
https://cityoffresno.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=f744a29c 7b904319917194fd412ebb8b. Accessed October 2020.
City of Fresno. 2020b. General Plan – Program Environmental Impact Report.
Accessed December 2020.
City of Fresno. 2017. General Plan land Use and Circulation Map. Website:
https://www.fresno.gov/publicworks/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/2017/10/5-City- of-Fresno-General-Plan-Land-Use-and-Circulation-Map.pdf. Accessed October 2020.
City of Fresno. 2014. Fresno General Plan. Website: https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp- content/uploads/sites/10/2019/07/Consolidated-GP-7-2019.pdf. Accessed October 2020.
Section 3.1: Aesthetics
Some references are listed under Multi-Section.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2018. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Accessed October 2018.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/.
Section 3.2: Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Some references are listed under Multi-Section.
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2016. California Important Farmland Finder map. Website: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed October 2020.
Section 3.3: Air Quality
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards. May 2016. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf. Accessed December 2020.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. 2015.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
References
4.2 https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI-2015/FINAL-DRAFT- GAMAQI.PDF. Accessed: December 2020.
SCS Engineers. Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate Application for a Waste Gas Flare at the Fresno/Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility in Fresno, California (C-535), December 2019.
USGS 2011. Reported Historic Asbestos Mines, Historic Asbestos Prospects, and Other Natural Occurrences of Asbestos in California. Website:
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/ms/59/MS59_Plate.pdf. Accessed December 2020.
Section 3.4: Biological Resources
Bechard, M. J., C. S. Houston, J. H. Saransola, and A. S. England. 2010. Swainson's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni), version 2.0. In the Birds of North America (A. F. Poole, Editor).
Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2020a. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) – Commercial version dated December 1, 2020. Retrieved December 15, 2020, from https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx. ______. 2020b. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). Retrieved December 15, 2020 from www.wildlife.ca.gov/data/BIOS
_____. 2020c. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. September 2020. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109383&inline. _____. 2020d. Special Animals List. November 2020. Available:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109406&inline.
California Native Plant Society. 2020. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. V.7- 08c-Interim 8-22-02. Updated online and accessed via: www.rareplants.cnps.org.
Mayer, K. E., and W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr. 1988. A guide to wildlife habitat of California.
State of California, Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA 166 pp.
U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery plan for upland species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Region 1. Portland, OR. 319 pp. ______. 2010. San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) 5-year review: summary and evaluation. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, CA. 122 pp. ______. 2020. Information for Planning and Consultation. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ Accessed December 15, 2020.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
References
4.3 ______. 2018c. National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html
Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1988. California's Wildlife. Vol. I-III. 1988-1990, with updates online. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, California. Accessed in November 2018 at:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR/Life-History-and-Range Section 3.5: Cultural Resources
References are listed under Multi-Section.
Section 3.6: Energy
References are listed under Multi-Section.
Section 3.7: Geology and Soils
Some references are listed under Multi-Section.
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2020. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Website: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/.
Accessed December 2020.
_____. 2015. Landslides. Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=reg ulatorymaps. Accessed December 2020.
Section 3.8: Greenhouse Gases
Some references are listed under Multi-Section and Air Quality.
City of Fresno. 2020. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Update. https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2020/03/Appendix_G- GHG_Reduction_Plan_Update.pdf. Accessed December 2020.
Section 3.9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Some references are listed under Multi-Section.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2018. Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Website:
https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/31219c833eb54598ba83d09fa0adb346?geometr y=-120.487%2C36.545%2C-118.752%2C36.931. Accessed December 2020.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
References
4.4 Department of Toxic and Substances Control (DTSC). 2020. EnviroStor Data Management System.
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=fresno. Accessed December 2020.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2020. GeoTracker Data Management System.
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=fresno.
Accessed December 2020.
Section 3.10: Hydrology and Water Quality
Some references are listed under Multi-Section.
Flood Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Flood Insurance Rate Map #06019C2085H. Website:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=Fresno%2C%20CA#searchre sultsanchor. Accessed December 2020.
Section 3.11: Land Use
References are listed under Multi-Section.
Section 3.12: Mineral Resources
References are listed under Multi-Section.
Section 3.13: Noise
Some references are listed under Multi-Section.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2020. Roadway Construction Noise Model. _____. 2017. Highway Traffic Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance. Website:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environMent/noise/regulations_and_guidance/polguide/ polguide02.cfm. Accessed December 2020.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Website:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta- report-no-0123_0.pdf. Accessed November 2020.
Section 3.14: Population and Housing
Some references are listed under Multi-Section.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
References
4.5 California Department of Finance. 2020. Report E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State January 1, 2019 and 2020. Website:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-1/. Accessed December 2020.
Section 3.15: Public Services
References are listed under Multi-Section
Section 3.16: Recreation
References are listed under Multi-Section.
Section 3.17: Transportation and Traffic
Some references are listed under Multi-Section.
City of Fresno. CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Thresholds. June 2020. https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2020/06/CEQA- Guidelines-for-Vehicle-Miles-Traveled-Thresholds-June-2020-DRAFT.pdf.
Accessed December 2020.
Section 3.18: Tribal Cultural Resources
References are listed under Multi-Section.
Section 3.19: Utilities and Service Systems
Some references are listed under Multi-Section.
City of Fresno. 2016. 2015 Urban Water management Plan. Website:
https://www.fresno.gov/publicutilities/wp-
content/uploads/sites/16/2016/11/CityofFresno2015UWMP_adopted.pdf.
Accessed December 2020.
Section 3.20: Wildfire
Some references are listed under Multi-Section.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2018. Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Website:
https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/31219c833eb54598ba83d09fa0adb346?geometr y=-120.487%2C36.545%2C-118.752%2C36.931. Accessed December 2020.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
References
4.6 This page left intentionally blank.
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
List of Preparers
5.1 5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
Principal in Charge .................................................................................. Trevor Macenski Project Manager .............................................................................................. Elena Nuño Environmental Planner ................................................................................ Zoryana Pope Senior Biologist ........................................................................................... Carie Wingert Principal Archaeologist ............................................................................... Alisa Reynolds Environmental Planner ............................................................................... Kaela Johnson Editor ......................................................................................................... Chris Broderick
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
List of Preparers
5.2 This page left intentionally blank.
APPENDICES
This page left intentionally blank.
APPENDIX A
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
- CalEEMod Construction Emissions
- Prioritization
- ATC/PTO Application
This page left intentionally blank.
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment - City equipment list
Trips and VMT - Assuming up to 15 workers per day worst-case Included 10 additional truck trips for mobilization/demobilization
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Entire site would be 0.13 acres, up to 800 sf electrical building Construction Phase - Schedule from City - 220 days of construction Off-road Equipment - Minimal Equipment
Off-road Equipment -
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
641.35 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.029 N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006
45 Climate Zone 3 Operational Year 2023
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 3.23 1000sqft 0.07 3,225.00 0 Floor Surface Area Population
General Heavy Industry 0.80 1000sqft 0.06 800.00 0
1.0 Project Characteristics
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2