Fresno City Council
November 16, 2023

Addendum to the Initial Study/
Mitigated Negative Declaration for
the Southwest Fresno Green Trail
Project, Fresno, Fresno County,
California
OCTOBER 2023

PREPARED FOR
City of Fresno
Department of Public Works

PREPARED BY
SWCA Environmental Consultants

ADDENDUM TO THE

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

FOR THE

SOUTHWEST FRESNO GREEN TRAIL PROJECT,

FRESNO, FRESNO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for
City of Fresno Department of Public Works
2600 Fresno Street, Room 4016
Fresno, California 93721
Attn: Brandon Chacon, Projects Administrator
Prepared by
SWCA Environmental Consultants
3426 Empresa Drive, Suite 100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 543-7095
www.swca.com
SWCA Project No. 77875
October 2023

Addendum to the Southwest Green Trail Project IS/MND
i

CONTENTS
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Purpose of Addendum.......................................................................................................................... 1 3 Revised Project Description................................................................................................................. 3 4 Comparison to the Conditions Listed in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 ........................... 3

4.1 Aesthetics...................................................................................................................................... 3

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ............................................................................................. 3

4.3 Air Quality.................................................................................................................................... 3

4.4 Biological Resources.................................................................................................................... 4

4.5 Cultural Resources........................................................................................................................ 4

4.6 Energy........................................................................................................................................... 5

4.7 Geology and Soils......................................................................................................................... 5

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions........................................................................................................... 6

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials................................................................................................ 6

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ...................................................................................................... 7

4.11 Land Use/Planning ....................................................................................................................... 7

4.12 Mineral Resources........................................................................................................................ 7

4.13 Noise............................................................................................................................................. 8

4.14 Population and Housing................................................................................................................ 8

4.15 Public Services ............................................................................................................................. 8

4.16 Recreation..................................................................................................................................... 8

4.17 Transportation and Traffic............................................................................................................ 9

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources........................................................................................................... 10

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems..................................................................................................... 10

4.20 Wildfire....................................................................................................................................... 10 5 Basis for Addendum........................................................................................................................... 11 Appendices
Appendix A. Adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Figures
Figure 1. Project location map...................................................................................................................... 2 Addendum to the Southwest Green Trail Project IS/MND
ii
This page intentionally left blank.

Addendum to the Southwest Green Trail Project IS/MND
1 1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Fresno (City) adopted an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) in February 2020 to evaluate the potential environmental impacts from the design and construction of an approximately 0.8-mile-long Class I trail along the Fanning Ditch alignment between South West Avenue and South Thorne Avenue in the City of Fresno, Fresno County, California (Figure 1). A portion of the proposed trail alignment on Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 477-040-69 and 477-040-72 encompasses an existing Fresno Irrigation District (FID) easement. Since adoption of the IS/MND, the City and FID determined that the existing FID pipeline within the FID easement would require replacement prior to construction of the proposed trail in that location. As such, the project design has been modified to include the replacement of the existing FID pipeline within the footprint of the proposed trail alignment.

The replacement pipeline would be the same size as the existing pipeline and would not result in an increase or decrease in capacity. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum to the Final IS/MND (Addendum) is the appropriate environmental documentation to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the replacement of the existing FID pipeline because the proposed change is limited to a minor technical change and would not result in any new or more severe environmental impacts than what was described in the adopted IS/MND. 2 PURPOSE OF ADDENDUM
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, when a lead agency has adopted an IS/MND for a project, a subsequent IS/MND does not need to be prepared for the project unless the lead agency determines that one or more of the following conditions are met:

1. Substantial project changes are proposed that will require major revisions of the previous IS/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

2. Substantial changes would occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that require major revisions to the previous IS/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

3. New information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous IS/MND was adopted shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous IS/MND;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than identified in the previous IS/MND;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous IS/MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives.

Pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, preparation of an Addendum to an IS/MND is appropriate when none of the conditions specified in Section 15162 (above) are present and some minor technical changes to the previously adopted IS/MND are necessary.

Addendum to the Southwest Green Trail Project IS/MND
2 Figure 1. Project location map.

Addendum to the Southwest Green Trail Project IS/MND
3 3 REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City, as the CEQA Lead Agency pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15367, is proposing the replacement of the existing FID pipeline on APNs 477-040-69 and 477-040-72 in addition to the design and construction of an approximately 0.8-mile-long Class I trail along the Fanning Ditch alignment between South West Avenue and South Thorne Avenue in the City of Fresno. A description and evaluation of the proposed 0.8-mile-long Class I trail is included in the Final IS/MND, adopted in February 2020.

The project would continue to include the design and construction of an approximately 0.8-mile-long Class I trail but would also include the replacement of an existing 36-inch-wide FID pipeline within the existing 750-foot-long FID easement on APNs 477-040-69 and 477-040-72 (Figure 1). The location of the FID pipeline replacement would be entirely located within the footprint of the originally approved project and would not increase or decrease conveyance capacity. Construction activities for the revised project would generally be consistent with the originally approved project and would require a negligible increase in excavation activities for replacement of the proposed pipeline. Construction activities for the proposed pipeline replacement would require a 4- to 5-foot-wide trench with a maximum depth of 10 feet.

No additional ground disturbance beyond what was covered in the adopted IS/MND would occur, and no other changes are proposed.
4 COMPARISON TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN STATE
CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15162

4.1 Aesthetics
Section 1, Aesthetics, of the adopted IS/MND evaluated the project’s potential impacts on visual resources within the project area. As discussed in the adopted IS/MND, the project does not include the construction or establishment of buildings or structures that could obstruct natural landscaped views. The proposed replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not result in the construction of new aboveground structures or other construction activities not previously evaluated in the adopted IS/MND; therefore, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not result in any new or more severe impacts related to aesthetic resources.

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
As evaluated in Section 2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, of the adopted IS/MND, the originally approved project would not result in impacts related to agricultural or forestry resources because the project site does not support any Farmland or forest land. The replacement of the existing FID pipeline would occur entirely within the footprint of the originally approved project and would not result in any impacts to agricultural or forestry resources. The replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not result in any new or more severe impacts related to agricultural or forestry resources.

4.3 Air Quality
Section 3, Air Quality, of the adopted IS/MND determined that air emissions associated with the proposed project would not exceed construction or operational thresholds established by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Conservation District (SJVAPCD) or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, odors, or other emissions. Construction activities associated with the replacement of the Addendum to the Southwest Green Trail Project IS/MND
4 existing FID pipeline would generally be consistent with those evaluated for the originally approved project and would not exceed construction or operational thresholds established by the SJVAPCD or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, odors, or other emissions. Consistent with the evaluation included in the adopted IS/MND, the project would be consistent with the growth assumptions included in the SJVAPCD air quality plans because the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not increase conveyance capacity in a manner that could result in population growth beyond what was included in the SJVAPCD estimates. In addition, the proposed pipeline replacement would result in the continued operation of an existing pipeline and would not result in an increase in operational maintenance trips that could increase vehicle miles traveled (VMT) beyond those used in the SJVAPCD estimates. Because construction activities for the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would be consistent with those evaluated for the originally approved project, the project would continue to be required to comply with all SJVAPCD control measures, including construction dust suppression requirements under SJVAPCD Regulation VIII. Therefore, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not result in any new or more severe impacts related to air quality.

4.4 Biological Resources
Section 4, Biological Resources, of the adopted IS/MND evaluated the originally approved project’s potential to adversely impact biological resources within the project area. The adopted IS/MND identified the project’s potential to adversely impact special-status wildlife species, including burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), western pond turtle (Emys marmorata), San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), and other raptor species. In addition, the adopted IS/MND identified the potential for the originally approved project to conflict with the Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E) San Joaquin Valley Operation and Maintenance Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP).

The proposed replacement of the existing FID pipeline would result in construction activities that would generally be consistent with those evaluated under the originally approved project and would be entirely located within the footprint of the originally approved project; therefore, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would have similar potential to adversely impact special-status wildlife species and conflict with the PG&E San Joaquin Valley Operation and Maintenance HCP. As identified in the adopted IS/MND, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5 would ensure potential impacts related to biological resources would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Therefore, the proposed replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not result in any new impacts to biological resources beyond what was identified in the adopted IS/MND, and no new mitigation measures are required.

4.5 Cultural Resources
Section 5, Cultural Resources, of the adopted IS/MND evaluated the originally approved project’s potential to adversely impact cultural resources within the project area. Based on adherence to existing regulations, the adopted IS/MND determined that the originally approved project would not result in an adverse change to the significance of a historical or an archaeological resource or disturb human remains.

Consistent with the originally approved project, the proposed pipeline alignment would not disturb any historical resources. The replacement of the existing FID pipeline would be located entirely within the footprint of the originally approved project and would require a negligible increase in excavation activities that would generally be consistent with those evaluated under the originally approved project.

Construction activities for the proposed pipeline replacement would require a 4- to 5-foot-wide trench with a maximum depth of 10 feet. Therefore, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would have the same potential for inadvertent discovery of cultural resources and human remains. Consistent with the analysis of the IS/MND, compliance with existing regulations would reduce potential impacts related to the inadvertent discovery of cultural resources and human remains. In the event of inadvertent discovery, existing regulations would require work to temporarily be halted by the on-site construction manager; a Addendum to the Southwest Green Trail Project IS/MND
5 qualified archaeologist to be retained; and all federal, state, and local guidelines pertaining to the unanticipated discovery of archaeological and human resources to be adhered to (e.g., notification of applicable agencies, preservation, treatment, recovery procedures, etc.). Consistent with the evaluation included in the adopted IS/MND, based on required compliance with existing regulations, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not result in an adverse change to the significance of a historical or an archaeological resource or disturb human remains. Therefore, the proposed replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not result in any new or more severe impacts related to cultural resources.

4.6 Energy
Section 6, Energy, of the adopted IS/MND evaluated the originally approved project’s potential impacts on energy consumption. Consistent with the adopted IS/MND, the project would require energy use during construction activities, which would be temporary in nature. The replacement of the existing FID pipeline would result in the continued operation of an existing pipeline and would not result in an increase in operational energy use beyond what was evaluated in the adopted IS/MND. Further, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not increase conveyance capacity in a manner that could otherwise increase operational energy use. Consistent with the evaluation included in the adopted IS/MND, due to the minimal energy use associated with the project, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not conflict with any renewable energy or energy efficiency plans. Therefore, the project would not result in any new or more severe impacts related to energy resources.

4.7 Geology and Soils
As evaluated in Section 7, Geology and Soils, of the adopted IS/MND, the originally approved project would not result in the risk of loss, injury, or death associated with seismic or other ground-failure hazards based on adherence to existing building regulations. The proposed replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not include the construction of any additional roadways, buildings, or structures that could result in risk associated seismic hazards or other ground-failure events. Therefore, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not result in any new or more severe impacts related to seismic hazards. In addition, the project would result in construction activities that would generally be consistent with those evaluated under the originally approved project and would continue to be subject to the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with best management practices (BMPs) to reduce potential impacts associated with erosion; therefore, the proposed replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not result in any new or more severe impacts related to erosion. Consistent with the originally approved project, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not include the construction or installation of any septic tanks or alternative wastewater treatment systems.

As evaluated in the adopted IS/MND, the originally approved project has the potential to inadvertently encounter paleontological resources during proposed excavation activities. The replacement of the existing FID pipeline would be located entirely within the footprint of the originally approved project and would require a negligible increase in excavation activities that would generally be consistent with those evaluated under the originally approved project. Construction activities for the proposed pipeline replacement would require a 4- to 5-foot-wide trench with a maximum depth of 10 feet. Therefore, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would have the same potential to inadvertently encounter paleontological resources. As identified in the IS/MND, implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure potential impacts related to paleontological resources would be reduced to less-thansignificant levels. Consistent with the evaluation included in the adopted IS/MND, based on required compliance with existing regulations and implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not result in any new impacts related to geology, soil, or Addendum to the Southwest Green Trail Project IS/MND
6 paleontological resources beyond what was identified in the IS/MND, and no new mitigation measures are required.

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Section 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the adopted IS/MND determined that the originally approved project would not generate substantial greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during construction or operation, which is consistent with the City’s General Plan and 2014 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan. The replacement of the existing FID pipeline would result in construction activities that would generally be consistent with those evaluated under the originally approved project and would continue to result in a nominal temporary contribution to regional GHG emissions. The replacement of the existing FID pipeline would result in the continued operation of an existing pipeline and would not result in an increase in operational energy use or vehicle trips that could generate a new source of GHG emissions. Further, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not expand conveyance capacity in a manner that could otherwise increase operational energy use or GHG emissions. Because the project would result in minimal GHG emissions during construction and operation, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would also be consistent with the City’s General Plan and 2014 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan.

Therefore, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not result in any new or more severe impacts related to GHG emissions.

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the adopted IS/MND analyzed the originally approved project’s potential to create a significant hazard due to hazards and hazardous materials. The adopted IS/MND determined that, based on required compliance with existing regulations, construction and operation of the originally approved project would not create a significant hazard to the public as a result of the transport, use, disposal, or release of hazardous materials. The replacement of the existing FID pipeline would result in construction activities that would be consistent with those evaluated under the originally approved project and would continue to be required to comply with existing regulations to avoid accidental release conditions during project activities.

The replacement of the existing FID pipeline would be located entirely within the footprint of the originally approved project; therefore, as evaluated in the adopted IS/MND, the project would be located within 0.25 mile of three schools and in the vicinity of a previously recorded closed release site and previously recorded underground storage tanks (USTs) and aboveground storage tanks (ASTs). The replacement of the existing FID pipeline would result in construction activities that would generally be consistent with those evaluated under the originally approved project; therefore, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would have similar impacts to those evaluated in the adopted IS/MND. As identified in the IS/MND, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires soil sampling and identifies the proper protocol to be implemented in the event hazardous substances are identified within soils at the project site, which would reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant levels. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts beyond what was identified in the IS/MND would occur.

Consistent with the originally approved project, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not result in the construction of any new occupiable building or structures and would not be located within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ) or within a wildland area; therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to the risk of wildfire. Further, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not result in features that could impede emergency access or evacuation efforts.

Addendum to the Southwest Green Trail Project IS/MND
7 Based on the analysis provided above, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not result in any new impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials beyond what was identified in the IS/MND, and no new mitigation measures are required.

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the adopted IS/MND evaluated the project’s potential to increase pollutants at the project site that could run off into surrounding areas. As discussed in the adopted IS/MND, based on preparation and implementation of a SWPPP with BMPs, the originally approved project would not violate any water quality standards. The replacement of the existing FID pipeline would result in construction activities that would generally be consistent with those evaluated under the originally approved project and would continue to be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP with BMPs; therefore, the project would not violate any water quality standards. The adopted IS/MND determined that the originally approved project would not increase stormwater runoff as a result of the substantial alteration of drainage patterns or creation of impervious surface area. The replacement of the existing FID pipeline would require a negligible increase in excavation activities that would generally be consistent with those evaluated under the originally approved project. The replacement of the existing FID pipeline would be located entirely within the footprint of the originally approved project and would not require any additional ground disturbance beyond what was covered in the adopted IS/MND, nor would it create additional impervious surface area within the project area; therefore, the project would not increase stormwater runoff as a result of the substantial alteration of drainage patterns or creation of impervious surface area. As evaluated in the adopted IS/MND, the project site is not located within a flood hazard zone. Because the project would be located entirely within the footprint of the originally approved project, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would also not be located within a flood hazard zone. Consistent with the adopted IS/MND, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not increase conveyance capacity in a manner that could increase water use or interfere with a groundwater management plan. Therefore, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not result in any new or more severe impacts related to hydrology and water quality.

4.11 Land Use/Planning
Section 11, Land Use and Planning, of the adopted IS/MND evaluated the originally approved project’s consistency with the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan. Consistent with the analysis in the adopted IS/MND, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline to allow for the construction of the proposed trail alignment would be consistent with the applicable planning documents because the proposed Class I trail is identified as a planned trail in the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan. The replacement of the existing FID pipeline would be located entirely below ground and would not result in new features that could divide an established community. As such, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not result in any new or more severe impacts related to land use and planning.

4.12 Mineral Resources
As discussed in Section 12, Mineral Resources, of the adopted IS/MND, mining within the city is only permitted in the Mining Overlay District; therefore, the originally approved project would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources. Consistent with the analysis provided in the approved IS/MND, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not be located within the City’s Mining Overlay District. Therefore, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not result in any new or more severe impacts related to mineral resources.

Addendum to the Southwest Green Trail Project IS/MND
8 4.13 Noise
Section 13, Noise, of the adopted IS/MND analyzed the originally approved project’s consistency with the City’s noise thresholds. The replacement of the existing FID pipeline would result in construction activities that would generally be consistent with those evaluated under the originally approved project.

As evaluated for the originally approved project, per Section 10-109 of the City’s Municipal Code, construction noise associated with the project would be exempt from the City’s noise standards because proposed construction activities would take place between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Additionally, any groundborne vibration associated with the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would be exempt from the City’s vibration standards, pursuant to Section 15-2507 of the City’s Municipal Code. Consistent with the analysis provided in the adopted IS/MND, operation of the project would not result in an increase in long-term noise because the replacement of the existing FID pipeline to allow for the construction of the proposed trail alignment would ultimately reduce vehicle trips in proximate areas by providing active transportation opportunities. Further, the proposed pipeline replacement would result in the continued operation of an existing pipeline and would not result in an increase in operational noise or vibration above existing conditions.

The originally approved project is located approximately 0.5 mile south of the Fresno Chandler Executive Airport but is not located within an unacceptable noise contour associated with the airport. Because the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would be located entirely within the footprint of the originally approved project, the project would not be located within an unacceptable noise contour associated with the airport. Therefore, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not result in any new or more severe impacts related to noise.

4.14 Population and Housing
As determined in Section 14, Population and Housing, of the adopted IS/MND, the originally approved project would be limited to the construction of a planned trail and would not induce population growth or displace existing housing. Consistent with the originally approved project, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not increase conveyance capacity or otherwise induce population growth or displace existing housing; therefore, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not result in any new or more severe impacts related to population and housing.

4.15 Public Services
As determined in Section 15, Public Services, of the adopted IS/MND, the originally approved project would not interfere with or increase demand on existing fire protection services, police protection services, public schools, public parks, or other public facilities. The replacement of the existing FID pipeline would also not interfere with or increase demand on existing fire protection services, police protection services, public schools, public parks, or other public facilities. Therefore, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not result in any new or more severe impacts related to public services.

4.16 Recreation
As determined in Section 16, Recreation, of the adopted IS/MND, the originally approved project would not increase demand on existing recreational facilities. Consistent with the evaluation included in the adopted IS/MND, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not increase demand on recreational facilities. Therefore, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not result in any new or more severe impacts related to recreation.

Addendum to the Southwest Green Trail Project IS/MND
9 4.17 Transportation and Traffic
Section 17, Transportation, of the adopted IS/MND analyzed the originally approved project’s potential impacts on the circulation system. It was determined that the originally approved project may require temporary traffic controls that could conflict with applicable circulation plans. The replacement of the existing FID pipeline would result in construction activities that would generally be consistent with those evaluated under the originally approved project and would likely require similar traffic controls that could conflict with applicable circulation plans. As identified in the IS/MND, implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAN-1 would ensure potential impacts related to consistency with applicable circulation plans would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts beyond what was identified in the IS/MND would occur.

At the time the original IS/MND was adopted, the City had not established VMT-based criteria for measuring transportation impacts. On June 25, 2020, the City adopted CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds (Fresno VMT Thresholds), pursuant to Senate Bill 743, to be effective July 1, 2020. The Fresno VMT Thresholds document was prepared and adopted consistent with the requirements of State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.3 and 15064.7. The California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA 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.

Section 3, Project Screening, of the Fresno VMT Thresholds discusses a variety of projects that may be screened out of a VMT analysis, including specific development and transportation projects. For development projects, conditions may exist that would presume that a development project has a lessthan-significant impact. These may be size, location, proximity to transit, or trip‐making potential. For transportation projects, the primary attribute to consider is the potential to increase vehicle travel, sometimes referred to as “induced travel.” As discussed in the Fresno VMT Thresholds, the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA lists a series of projects that are not expected to generate a substantial or measurable increase in vehicle travel and, therefore, would not require an induced travel analysis. This transportation project is eligible to screen out because the project would result in the replacement of the existing FID pipeline to allow for the construction of a Class I bike path, trail, multi‐use path, or other off‐road facility that serves nonmotorized travel. Further, the proposed pipeline replacement would result in the continued operation of an existing pipeline and would not increase vehicle trips within the project area. Therefore, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would be consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) and would continue to result in a less-than-significant impact related to VMT.

The replacement of the existing FID pipeline does not include the construction of additional roadways that could increase roadway hazards within the project area. Further, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not result in features that could impede emergency access. Therefore, consistent with the determination of the approved IS/MND, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not increase roadway hazards due to design or incompatible use, nor would it result in inadequate emergency access.

Based on the analysis provided above, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not result in any new impacts related to transportation beyond what was identified in the IS/MND, and no new mitigation measures are required.

Addendum to the Southwest Green Trail Project IS/MND
10 4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
As discussed under Section 18, Tribal Cultural Resources, Assembly Bill 52 was conducted for the originally approved project and no responses were received. Construction activities for the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would generally be consistent with the originally approved project, and no additional ground disturbance beyond what was covered in the adopted IS/MND would occur. The replacement of the existing FID pipeline would be located entirely within the footprint of the originally approved project and would require a negligible increase in excavation activities that would generally be consistent with those evaluated under the originally approved project; therefore, the project would not require disturbance in areas that were previously not evaluated for potential impacts on tribal cultural resources. Consistent with the analysis of the IS/MND, compliance with existing regulations would reduce potential impacts related to the inadvertent discovery of tribal cultural resources. In the event of inadvertent discovery of tribal cultural resources, existing regulations would require work to be temporarily halted by the on-site construction manager; a qualified archaeologist to be retained; and all federal, state, and local guidelines pertaining to the unanticipated discovery of archaeological and human resources to be adhered to (e.g., notification of applicable agencies, preservation, treatment, recovery procedures, etc.). Consistent with the evaluation included in the adopted IS/MND, based on required compliance with existing regulations, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not result in an adverse change to the significance of a tribal cultural resource. Therefore, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not result in any new or more severe impacts related to tribal cultural resources.

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Section 19, Utilities and Service Systems, of the adopted IS/MND determined that the originally approved project would not result in any impacts on potable water, wastewater, or solid waste services. Consistent with the determination of the adopted IS/MND, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not increase conveyance capacity in a manner that could increase demand on potable water or wastewater services. In addition, the replacement of an existing FID pipeline would not increase demand on solid waste services. Therefore, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not result in any new or more severe impacts related to utilities and service systems.

4.20 Wildfire
Section 20, Wildfire, of the adopted IS/MND determined that the originally approved project would not result in impacts related to risk of wildfire because the originally approved project would not be located in a high or very high FHSZ or within a wildland area and does not include the construction of any habitable structures. Consistent with the originally approved project, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not result in the construction of any new occupiable buildings or structures. Because the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would be located entirely within the footprint of the originally approved project, the project would not be located within a high or very high FHSZ or within a wildland area. Therefore, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not result in any new or more severe impacts related to wildfire.

Addendum to the Southwest Green Trail Project IS/MND
11 5 BASIS FOR ADDENDUM
Based on the analysis provided above, the replacement of the existing FID pipeline would not trigger any of the conditions listed in State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 or 15164 and would not require the preparation of a subsequent IS/MND. The replacement of the existing FID pipeline is relatively minor in nature and, as documented above, would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous IS/MND was adopted has been identified. The City has reviewed and considered the information contained in this Addendum and finds that the preparation of subsequent CEQA analysis that would require public circulation is not necessary.

Addendum to the Southwest Green Trail Project IS/MND
12 This page intentionally left blank.

APPENDIX A
Adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
prepared by
City of Fresno
Department of Public Works
2600 Fresno Street, 4th Floor, Room 4016
Fresno, California 93721
Contact: Han Ngo, P.E., Project Manager
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
7080 North Whitney Avenue, Suite 101
Fresno, California 93720
February 2020

Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
prepared by
City of Fresno
Department of Public Works
2600 Fresno Street, 4th Floor, Room 4016
Fresno, California 93721
Contact: Han Ngo, P.E., Project Manager
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
7080 North Whitney Avenue, Suite 101
Fresno, California 93720
January 2020
This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.

Table of Contents
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration i
Table of Contents
Initial Study.............................................................................................................................................1

1. Project Title.........................................................................................................................1

2. Lead Agency Name and Address.........................................................................................1

3. Contact Person and Phone Number ...................................................................................1

4. Purpose ...............................................................................................................................1

5. Project Location ..................................................................................................................1

6. General Plan Designation....................................................................................................7

7. Zoning..................................................................................................................................7

8. Description of Project .........................................................................................................7

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting..................................................................................13

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required ........................................................13 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected.........................................................................................15 Determination ......................................................................................................................................15 Environmental Checklist.......................................................................................................................17 1 Aesthetics..........................................................................................................................17 2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources..................................................................................19 3 Air Quality .........................................................................................................................21 4 Biological Resources..........................................................................................................27 5 Cultural Resources............................................................................................................35 6 Energy ...............................................................................................................................38 7 Geology and Soils..............................................................................................................41 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions...............................................................................................46 9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................55 10 Hydrology and Water Quality ...........................................................................................59 11 Land Use and Planning......................................................................................................64 12 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................66 13 Noise .................................................................................................................................68 14 Population and Housing....................................................................................................75 15 Public Services...................................................................................................................77 16 Recreation.........................................................................................................................80 17 Transportation ..................................................................................................................82 18 Tribal Cultural Resources..................................................................................................86 19 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................89 20 Wildfire..............................................................................................................................92 21 Mandatory Findings of Significance..................................................................................94 References............................................................................................................................................96 Bibliography..................................................................................................................................96 List of Preparers............................................................................................................................98 Tables
City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
ii
Table 1 Summary of Parcels ............................................................................................................2 Table 2 Construction Schedule ......................................................................................................13 Table 3 Health Effects Associated with Non-Attainment Criteria Pollutants................................22 Table 4 SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance .................................................................................23 Table 5 Construction Emissions (pounds/day) ..............................................................................24 Table 6 Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases .........................................................52 Table 7 Project Consistency with 2014 GGRP and General Plan...................................................53 Table 8 Transportation (Non-Aircraft) Noise Sources...................................................................70 Table 9 Stationary Noise Sources..................................................................................................71 Table 10 Construction Noise Levels.................................................................................................72 Table 11 Construction Equipment Vibration Levels........................................................................73 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location................................................................................................................3 Figure 2 Project Location Aerial........................................................................................................4 Figure 3 Site Photos..........................................................................................................................5 Figure 4 Site Photos..........................................................................................................................6 Figure 5 General Plan Land Use Designations ..................................................................................8 Figure 6 Zoning Designations............................................................................................................9 Figure 7 Project Components (1 of 3).............................................................................................10 Figure 8 Project Components (2 of 3).............................................................................................11 Figure 9 Project Components (3 of 3).............................................................................................12 Figure 10 Vegetation Map ................................................................................................................29 Appendices
Appendix A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling
Appendix B Biological Resources Documentation
Appendix C Cultural Resources Assessment
Appendix D Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix E Noise Calculations
Appendix F Tribal Consultation Outreach Letters
Initial Study
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 1
Initial Study

1. Project Title
City of Fresno Southwest Green Trail Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Fresno – Public Works Department
2600 Fresno Street, 4th Floor, Room 4016
Fresno, California 93721

3. Contact Person and Phone Number
Han Ngo, P.E., Project Manager
[email protected]

4. Purpose
The purpose of this stand-alone Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is to evaluate potential environmental impacts from implementation of the Southwest Green Trail (project) in the City of Fresno, California. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15367, the City of Fresno is the Lead Agency in the preparation of this IS/MND. The City has discretionary authority over the proposed project and is the Lead Agency for any additional environmental documentation required.

This document provides a description of the location and the characteristics of the project. An environmental checklist follows, giving an overview of the potential impacts that may result from project implementation. This IS/MND elaborates on the information contained in the environmental checklist, along with justification for the responses provided in the environmental checklist, referencing analysis from existing relevant CEQA documents where applicable.

5. Project Location
The project is located in the southwestern portion of the City of Fresno, along the Fanning Ditch alignment between S. West Avenue and S. Thorne Avenues. Figure 1 shows the project location from a regional perspective and Figure 2 shows the proposed trail alignment in the neighborhood context. The alignment is proposed on disturbed land cover and within non-native annual grassland between E. Florence Avenue and S. Delno Avenue. A canal flows next to the alignment along W.

Church Road between S. Fruit Avenue and S. Thorne Avenue. The canal traverses underground from S. Fruit Avenue and travels along the alignment and resurfaces just west of S. West Avenue. The proposed trail alignment passes through several Accessor Parcel Numbers (APNs), as listed below in Table 1. Photos of the alignment area are shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4.

City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
2 Table 1 Summary of Parcels
APN Property Owner
477-040-73T Fresno Housing Authority
477-040-72 Fresno Housing Authority
477-040-69T Fresno Housing Authority
477-040-51T Fresno Housing Authority
477-040-75ST Fresno Housing Authority
477-040-20T Fresno Housing Authority
477-051-04ST City of Fresno
477-051-01T Fresno Housing Authority
477-040-30T Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
477-053-23S Private Property
Initial Study
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 3
Figure 1 Regional Location
City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
4 Figure 2 Project Location Aerial
Initial Study
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 5
Figure 3 Site Photos
Photo 1 – View from S. Fruit Avenue of the Fanning Ditch and W. Church Road, looking to the east.

Photo 2 – View of the intersection of S. Fruit Avenue and W. Church Road, looking to the east. This intersection would be improved with the trail alignment, new curb and gutters, and a crosswalk.

City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
6 Figure 4 Site Photos
Photo 3 – View of an existing path adjacent to an electricity power station, looking to the southeast. The proposed trail alignment would traverse the foreground of the photo.

Initial Study
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 7

6. General Plan Designation
The proposed trail alignment and project components traverse numerous parcels with different general plan designations, as shown in Figure 5.

7. Zoning
The proposed trail alignment and project components traverse numerous parcels with different zoning designations, as shown in Figure 6.

8. Description of Project
The City of Fresno is proposing to design/construct an approximately 0.8 mile long Class I trail along the Fanning Ditch alignment between S. West Avenue and S. Thorne Avenue. The project would be funded by the Transformative Climate Communities Program. The area of the proposed alignment consists of undeveloped fields with the exception of the Fanning Ditch and Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District ponding basin.

Project design/construction would include an asphalt paved trail. The ultimate width of the trail may consist of 12-foot wide asphalt pavement and 12-foot wide landscaped areas on either side of the pavement. The project would include other compoenents such as new street and trail lights, curb and gutters, new ADA compliant curb ramps, and landscaping. Construction of the proposed trail may also include re-alignment of a portion of W. Florence Avenue east of S. West Avenue and earthwork to regrade the adjacent ponding basin, situated northeast of the intersection of W.

Florence and W. West Avenues. In order to construct the trail, the City must acquire aditional land along the trail alignment. Individual project components are discussed in further detail below and are shown in Figure 7 through Figure 9.

Street and Trail Lights
The project would install new street and trail lights at various points along the trail. Proposed lighting would be along the new trail as shown in Figure 7, Figure 8, and Figure 9.

Iron Barrier Fence
The project would construct an iron barrier fence at the trail head located at the southwest corner of West California Avenue and South Thorne Avenue to block public vehicle access.

Curb, Gutter, Crosswalk
To make the trail accessible from adjacent roadways, the project would construct new curb and curb ramps, gutters and crosswalks. These components would be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant and are proposed to increase accessibility to the proposed trail path. As shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9, new crosswalks are proposed at the connection of West Church Road and South Fruit Avenue and at the end of South Arthur Avenue connecting to West Church Road. Curb ramps and sidewalks are proposed at the intersection of South West Avenue and West Florence Avenue, the end of South Arthur Avenue, and the southwest corner of West California Avenue and South Thorne Avenue.

City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
8 Figure 5 General Plan Land Use Designations
Initial Study
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 9
Figure 6 Zoning Designations
City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
10 Figure 7 Project Components (1 of 3)
Initial Study
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 11
Figure 8 Project Components (2 of 3)
City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
12 Figure 9 Project Components (3 of 3)
Initial Study
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 13
Landscaping
As shown in Figure 7 through Figure 9, the project would add new trees to line the edges of the proposed trail path. In addition to trees, the project would add ornamental landscaping.

Construction
To construct the trail, approximately 2,500 cubic yards of excavated soil would be cut and then used as fill as needed and where appropriate. Approximately 1.4 acres would be paved. Construction would occur between the hours of 7:00 am and 4:00 pm, Monday through Friday. The project’s anticipated construction schedule and equipment required is shown below in Table 2.

Table 2 Construction Schedule
Construction Phase: Length Equipment
Demolition March 2022 to April 2022
Site Preparation April 2022 to May 2022 Backhoes, Dozers, Excavators, Grading May 2022 to June 2022 Compactors, Crawler Tractors, Dozers, Excavators, Graders,
Generator/Compressor, Scrapers, Signal
Boards, Trenchers
Asphalt Paving June 2022 to July 2022 Concrete/Industrial Saws, Compactors, Generator/Compressor, Pavers, Paving
Equipment, Rollers, Signal Boards,
Surfacing Equipment
Estimated Construction Completion September 2022

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
The proposed trail alignment runs through a portion of southwest Fresno, which is generally on the urban fringe where the dense urban areas to the northeast merge with the light industrial and agricultural areas to the southwest. To the north and east of the proposed trail alignment, the surrounding area is generally developed with single family residences. To the west and south, the surrounding area is generally undeveloped parcels with agricultural and light industrial uses.

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required
There are no other public agencies whose approval would be required.

City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
14 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 15
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
This project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, involving at least one impact that is “Potentially Significant” or “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
□ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and
Forestry 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 □ Tribal Cultural Resources □ Utilities/Service Systems □ Wildfire ■ Mandatory Findings of Significance
Determination
Based on this initial evaluation:
□ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
■ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “less than significant with mitigation incorporated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 17
Environmental Checklist
1 Aesthetics
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
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 a 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 that would adversely affect daytime
or nighttime views in the area? □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? There are no identified or designated scenic vistas located within the City of Fresno. However, distant views of the natural landscape features of the Sierra Nevada Mountains are located approximately 21 miles east of the project site (City of Fresno 2017). The project would construct an approximately 0.8-mile Class I trail along Fanning Ditch alignment between S. West Avenue and S.

Thorne Avenues. The proposed trail would include a 12-foot wide paved asphalt trail and 12-foot wide landscaped areas on either side of the paved asphalt trail. Other trail design features would include: new street and trail lights, curb and gutters, new ADA compliant curb ramps, and an iron barrier fence. No structures are proposed that would obstruct natural landscaped views. Therefore, no impacts would occur to scenic vistas.

NO IMPACT
City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
18 b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Scenic highways are California highways designated by a local governing body and protected by the State Scenic Highway Program for the purpose of protecting and enhancing the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors through special conservation treatment. There are no officially designated State Scenic Highways in Fresno (City of Fresno 2017) and no scenic features at the site. Therefore, no impacts to scenic resources, trees, rock outcroppings and/or historic buildings would occur.

NO IMPACT
c. Would the project, 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 a 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?
The project is located within a primarily urbanized area of Fresno and runs through a mixed-use community surrounded by residential, office, open space and institutional uses as indicated in the zoning map shown in Figure 6. The project is also within the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan and designates the trail alignment as a planned Class I Trail (City of Fresno 2017). Fresno adopted Trail Design Guidelines in June 2017 that provide trail design standards to ensure trails and associated amenities, guidelines, and specific standards are adhered to (City of Fresno 2017). Therefore, the project would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality.

Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?
The project is located within a primarily urbanized area of Fresno. Furthermore, the project is a planned Class I Trail designated in the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan. Potential sources of light or glare would be the installation of new street and trail lights along the trail alignment that would be required to adhere to Trail Design Guidelines as mentioned in Impact-1c (City of Fresno 2017). The project would also be required to adhere to Article 25 Section 15-2508 of the Fresno Municipal Code which provides additional lighting and glare regulations (City of Fresno 2016). These provisions include regulations for lighting placement to deflect light away from adjacent properties and public streets and direct glare from floodlights away from other property or streets, and requirements to install windows/other building materials that would not cause disruptive glare to adjoining properties. Therefore, impacts on daytime and nighttime view due to light and glare would be negligible. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 19
2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on 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, forest land (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 forest land or
conversion of forest land 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 forest land to non-forest
use? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?
e. Would the project 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 forest land to non-forest use?
The proposed trail alignment is located on land designated by the Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program as Urban and Built Up land and Vacant or Disturbed land (Department of Conservation 2018). As such, the proposed project would not have the City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
20 potential to convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. In addition, none of the parcels on which the proposed alignment are located are zoned for agricultural uses or are under Williamson Act contract (City of Fresno 2017; 2019). Because the project would not result in conversion or conflicts related to agricultural land, there would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (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. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? There are no forested areas in the vicinity of the proposed trail alignment and none of the parcels where the proposed trail alignment is located, are zoned for timber of forest production (City of Fresno 2017; 2019). Because the project would not result in the loss of forest land and would not conflict with zoning for forest land or timber land production, there would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Air Quality
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 21
3 Air Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
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 nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? □ □ ■ □
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? □ □ ■ □
Air Quality Standards and Attainment
The project site is located in San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) under the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). As the local air quality management agency, the SJVAPCD is required to monitor air pollutant levels to meet state and federal air quality standards and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards.

Depending on whether or not the standards are met or exceeded, the SJVAB is classified as being in “attainment” or “nonattainment.” Under state law, air districts are required to prepare a plan for air quality improvement for pollutants for which the district is in non-compliance. The SJVAB is in nonattainment for the federal standards for ozone and suspended particulate matter 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5) and the state standards for ozone, suspended particulate matter 10 microns or less (PM10) and PM2.5. Characteristics and health implications of ozone and PM are described in Table 3.

City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
22 Table 3 Health Effects Associated with Non-Attainment Criteria Pollutants Pollutant Adverse Effects
Ozone (1) Short-term exposures: (a) pulmonary function decrements and localized lung edema in humans and animals and (b) risk to public health implied by alterations in pulmonary morphology and host defense in animals; (2) long-term exposures: risk to public health implied by altered connective tissue metabolism and altered pulmonary morphology in animals after long-term exposures and pulmonary function decrements in chronically exposed humans; (3) vegetation damage; and (4) property damage.

Suspended particulate
matter (PM10)
(1) Excess deaths from short-term and long-term exposures; (2) excess seasonal declines in pulmonary function, especially in children; (3) asthma exacerbation and possibly induction; (4) adverse birth outcomes including low birth weight; (5) increased infant mortality; (6) increased respiratory symptoms in children such as cough and bronchitis; and (7) increased hospitalization for both cardiovascular and respiratory disease (including asthma).a Suspended particulate
matter (PM2.5)
(1) Excess deaths from short- and long-term exposures; (2) excess seasonal declines in pulmonary function, especially in children; (3) asthma exacerbation and possibly induction; (4) adverse birth outcomes, including low birth weight; (5) increased infant mortality; (6) increased respiratory symptoms in children, such as cough and bronchitis; and (7) increased hospitalization for both cardiovascular and respiratory disease, including asthma.a a More detailed discussions on the health effects associated with exposure to suspended particulate matter can be found in the following documents: EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, October 2004.

Source: U.S. EPA, http://www.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/ Air Quality Management
Under state law, the SJVAPCD is required to prepare a plan for air quality improvement for pollutants for which the District is in non-compliance. The 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard (2016 Ozone Plan) addresses the federal mandates related to the 2008 8-Hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This plan builds upon the approaches taken in the 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan and highlights current regulatory measures that have met and exceed federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements as well as acknowledge the significant amount of reductions to be achieved. The deadline for the San Joaquin Valley (Valley) to attain the 2008 8- Hour ozone standard is December 31, 2031. This requires another 207.7 tons per day in NOx reductions from stationary and mobile sources throughout the Valley. Currently, the ozone precursor emissions in the Valley are at historically low levels with approximately 80 percent reduction in NOx stationary source emissions since 1990. In addition, SJVAPCD updated their PM2.5 standards in 2018, with their 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards (2018 PM2.5 Plan). This plan develops a strategy to attain the federal health-based 1997, 2006, and 2012 NAAQS for PM2.5 (SJVAPCD 2018). The 2018 PM2.5 Plan addresses multiple federal PM2.5 standards and outlines a combination of innovative regulatory and non-regulatory measures for mobile, stationary, and area source control. Additionally, the SJVAPCD adopted the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation in 2007 (2007 PM10 Plan)(SJVAPCD 2007).

Methodology
The project consists of a trail with associated landscaping and street and trail lights and, therefore, would not be anticipated to result in substantial operational emissions of criteria pollutants.

Emissions for construction of the project were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model Version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod). The analysis reflects the construction of the project as described in the Project Description; CalEEMod defaults for construction phase length and Environmental Checklist
Air Quality
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 23
equipment were adjusted to match the project’s estimated construction schedule and equipment list, respectively. Specific model inputs are provided in Appendix A.

It was assumed the proposed project would comply with applicable regulatory standards, including SJVAPCD’s Regulation VIII construction dust control requirements. As such, twice daily site watering was incorporated into CalEEMod.

Air Emission Thresholds
The SJVAPCD has established individual project-level thresholds for temporary construction-related and long-term operational emissions of air pollutants, shown in Table 4. These thresholds represent the levels at which a project’s individual emissions of criteria air pollutants or precursors would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the SJVAB is in nonattainment under Federal and/or State ambient air quality standards (SJVAPCD 2015).

Table 4 SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance
Pollutant/ Precursor Construction Emissions (tpy) Operational Emissions (tpy) ROG 10 10
CO 100 100
SOx 27 27
NOX 10 10
PM10 15 15
PM2.5 15 15
Notes: tpy = tons per year, NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less; ROG = reactive organic gases
Source: Table 2, Section 8.3, SJVAPCD 2015.
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? As described above, the SJVAB is in non-attainment for the federal standards for ozone and PM2.5 and the state standards for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. To achieve attainment and maintenance of federal and state air quality standards, SJVAPCD has adopted the 2016 Ozone Plan, 2018 PM2.5 Plan, and 2007 PM10 Plan. SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts does not provide specific guidance for determining a project’s consistency with these applicable air quality plans. However, a project would generally be consistent with the air quality plans if it would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or contribute to new violations, would conform to the assumptions employed in emissions inventorying and modeling in support of the air quality plans, and would comply with applicable control measures outlined in the air quality plans.

As discussed under threshold b, below, the project would not result in substantial operational emissions of criteria pollutants and construction emissions would be under significance thresholds established by SJVAPCD. Therefore, the project would not exacerbate existing exceedances of air quality standards or contribute to new violations. Emissions modeling and planning conducted in support of SJVAPCD’s air quality plans are based on growth projections, land use, and vehicle miles City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
24 traveled (VMT) information provided by the Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG) (SJVAPCD 2015). The project would be consistent with these growth assumptions employed in the air quality plans because, as an active transportation project, the proposed trail would not result in population growth or increases in VMT beyond those used in SJVAPCD estimates. Finally, the project would be required to conform to all SJVAPCD control-measures, including construction dust suppression requirements under SJVAPCD Regulation VIII. Given the above considerations, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project 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?
According to SJVAPCD Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, projects determined to be significant due to an exceedance of SJVAPCD thresholds would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants. Furthermore, projects which would cause a worsening of areas already exceeding those standards would be considered to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criterial pollutants (SJVAPCD 2015). The following discussion addresses potential air quality emissions impacts from the proposed project’s construction and operational activities.

Construction
Table 5 summarizes the estimated maximum daily emissions (tons per year [tpy]) of pollutants associated with construction of the project. As shown below, ROG, NOX, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions would remain below SJVAPCD thresholds. As such, construction-related air quality impacts would be less than significant.

Table 5 Construction Emissions (pounds/day)
Pollutant Construction Emissions (tpy)
Significance
Threshold (tpy)
Significant
Impact?
ROG 0.1 10 No
NOx 1.0 100 No
CO 0.9 10 No
SOx <0.1 27 No
PM10 0.1 15 No
PM2.5 0.1 15 No
tpy = tons per year
See Appendix A for CalEEMod worksheets.

Environmental Checklist
Air Quality
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 25
Operational
The project would include a walking and bicycle trail with associated landscaping and street and trail lights. The project would accommodate and facilitate active transportation options, such as biking and walking, in turn reducing mobile source vehicle emissions by reducing VMT. Project components such as streetlights would consume energy, but would be connected to the electrical grid and, therefore, not associated with on-site operational air quality emissions. While project operation may involve activities associated with trail and lighting maintenance, such activities would be intermittent in nature and unlikely to result in substantial pollutant emissions. Given the project’s minimal potential to generate operational air quality emissions, combined with its overall beneficial effect on regional air quality by reducing VMT and facilitating active transportation, project operation would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants.

This impact would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Construction
Construction-related activities would result in short-term, project-generated emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM) exhaust emissions from off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for demolition, site preparation, grading, and paving activities. DPM was identified as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) by CARB in 1998.

Generation of DPM from construction projects typically occurs in a single area for a short period.

Construction of the proposed project would occur over approximately seven months. The dose to which the receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk. Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the extent of exposure that person has with the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time, meaning that a longer exposure period would result in a higher exposure level for the Maximally Exposed Individual. The risks estimated for a Maximally Exposed Individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer period of time. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic emissions, should be based on a 70-year exposure period; however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the project. Thus, the duration of proposed construction activities (i.e., seven months) is approximately one percent of the total exposure period used for health risk calculation. However, current models and methodologies for conducting health-risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods of 9, 40, and 70 years, which do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities, resulting in difficulties in producing accurate estimates of health risk (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2017).

The maximum PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would occur during site preparation and grading activities.

These activities would last for approximately two months. While the maximum diesel PM emissions associated with site preparation and grading activities would only occur for a portion of the overall construction period, these activities represent the worst case condition for the total construction period. This would represent less than one percent of the total exposure period for health risk calculation. Therefore, given the aforementioned, DPM generated by project construction is not expected to create conditions where the sensitive receptors would be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. This impact would be less than significant.

City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
26 Operation
A CO hotspot is a localized concentration of CO that is above a CO ambient air quality standard.

Localized CO hotspots can occur at intersections with heavy peak hour traffic. Specifically, hotspots can be created at intersections where traffic levels are sufficiently high such that the local CO concentration exceeds the federal one-hour standard of 35.0 parts per million (ppm) or the federal and state eight-hour standard of 9.0 ppm (CARB 2016). The proposed project would not consist of heavy traffic or idle vehicles, therefore emitting very low operational CO emissions.

The SJVAB is in conformance with state and federal CO standards, and most air quality monitoring stations no longer report CO levels. No stations within the vicinity of the project site have monitored CO since 2012. In 2012, the Fresno-Garland station detected an 8-hour maximum CO concentration of 2.06 ppm, which is substantially below the state and federal standards (CARB 2019). Project operation would not result in mobile trip generation and would reduce potential mobile source emissions of CO by facilitating active transportation, such as walking and biking, on the proposed trail. Based on the low background level of CO in the project area and the project’s potential to reduce mobile source emissions and traffic congestion by facilitating active transportation, the project would not create new hotspots or contribute substantially to existing hotspots, and impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
For construction activities, odors would be short-term in nature and are subject to SJVAPCD Rule 4102, Nuisance. Construction activities would be temporary and transitory and associated odors would cease upon construction completion. Accordingly, the project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people during construction, and project construction should have a less than significant impact in the short-term.

Common sources of operational odor complaints include sewage treatment plants, landfills, recycling facilities, and agricultural uses. The project would not include any of these uses that are known to generate odors. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on operational odors.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 27
4 Biological Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status 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, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ □ ■ □
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected wetlands (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? □ ■ □ □
City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
28 Rincon Consultants, Inc. performed a literature review and reconnaissance field survey for the project in October 2019. The results of the literature review and species potential to occur table are included in Appendix B.
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status 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?
A field visit was conducted on October 21, 2019 to verify on-site conditions. The alignment occurs on disturbed/developed landcover and within non-native annual grassland between W. Florence Avenue and S. Delno Avenue. Figure 10 illustrate general vegetation coverage along the project alignment. A canal flows next to the alignment along W. Church Road between S. Fruit and S.

Thorne Avenues. Water was flowing in the canal channel during the survey and a fish (unidentified) and wetland dependent plant species were observed within the canal channel. A desktop level review was conducted in October 2019 reviewing online resources such as the: United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory; USFWS Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) – Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC); California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), and California Native Plant Society. Literature review results are included in Appendix B.

Based on the literature review and verified during the field reconnaissance survey, there are no special status plant communities in the project area. The literature review revealed that several special status animal species have been known to occur in the area. There is potential habitat where the proposed trail alignment is located for special status species including burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and western pond turtle (Emys marmorata). During the survey, four coyote dens with openings 8-12 inches in diameter were observed within 200 feet of the alignment. Coyote scat and prey items were observed near the dens. No sign of San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF) (Vulpes macrotis mutica) was observed, but they have potential to occur on the site. Nesting habitat for raptors, including Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), a state threatened species, is located next to the alignment and a prey base (California ground squirrel and Botta’s pocket gopher) is available on site.

The project could result in direct or indirect disturbance of these special status animal species, which is a potentially significant impact.

There are existing trees scattered in the project area and on the surrounding parcels that could provide nesting habitat for common bird species. Migratory nongame native bird species are protected by international treaty under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (50 C.F.R Section 10.13). Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) prohibit take of all birds and their active nests including raptors and other migratory nongame birds (as listed under the Federal MBTA). The project could directly (e.g., through vegetation removal) and indirectly (e.g., through construction noise and vibration) affect nesting birds, which is a potentially significant impact.

Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 29
Figure 10 Vegetation Map
City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
30 Mitigation Measures
The following project-specific mitigation measures shall be incorporated prior to project site disturbance. These mitigation measures are based on the literature review and verification during a field reconnaissance survey conducted by Rincon Consultants, Inc. biologists on October 21, 2019.

BIO-1 Preconstruction Survey for Burrowing Owl and Avoidance Measures No more than 15 days before the start of ground-disturbing activities for the project, a qualified biologist(s) knowledgeable of the species will conduct a focused, preconstruction survey for burrowing owls and any signs of them on the project site and within 250 feet where access allows.

In conformance with federal and State regulations regarding the protection of raptors, the survey will be conducted per the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012). All areas of suitable habitat proposed for ground disturbance will be surveyed. If burrowing owls are detected, buffers and mitigation per the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation will be implemented consisting of:
 A no disturbance buffer shall be established around occupied burrows. The buffer size may range from 150 feet to 650 feet depending on the time of year and the level of construction activity (refer to CDFW 2012).
 A qualified biologist shall monitor the nest to ensure construction activities will not adversely impact the nesting birds and determine when the burrow is no longer occupied.  If construction activities cannot avoid the active burrowing owl nest, CDFW will be consulted. If necessary, burrowing owls may be passively relocated from burrows after an exclusion plan is prepared and approved by the CDFW.

BIO-2 Pre-construction Surveys for Western Pond Turtle, and Move Individuals to Safety
Prior to construction, a qualified biologist (i.e., a biologist approved by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to handle western pond turtles) shall survey for western pond turtles within 0.25-mile of aquatic and riparian habitat, where accessible. If any pond turtles are detected during these surveys, or during construction in an area where individuals could be affected, they shall be moved by a qualified biologist to a suitable location outside the area of impact. The candidate sites for relocation shall be identified before construction and shall be selected based on the size and type of habitat present, the potential for negative interactions with resident species, and the species’ range.

If any western pond turtle nests with eggs are found, the nests shall remain undisturbed until the eggs have hatched, if feasible. If avoidance of a nest is infeasible (e.g., if avoidance would result in an unacceptable delay in the project’s schedule), or if the eggs are discovered only after the nest has been affected, any viable eggs shall be relocated to a suitable location outside the impact area.

Egg relocation areas shall be identified based on pond turtle nesting biology. Any viable eggs shall be deposited in a hole and buried for thermal protection.

BIO-3 Measures for Protection of San Joaquin Kit Fox
No less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to commencement of construction activities the City of Fresno shall retain a USFWS- and CDFW-approved biologist to conduct pre-construction Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 31
surveys in potential habitat in the periphery of the trail alignment that has not been fragmented by agricultural-residential or urban development. The survey, reporting, and activities during construction shall adhere to the requirements contained in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance. As described in the standardized recommendations, if a natal/pupping den is discovered within the proposed trail alignment or within 200-feet of the project boundary, the USFWS shall be immediately notified and the den shall not be disturbed or destroyed. If the preconstruction/preactivity survey reveals an active natal pupping den or new information, the project applicant shall contact the USFWS immediately to obtain the necessary take authorization/permit.

If San Joaquin kit fox use is observed, the den shall be avoided and the USFWS shall be contacted.

Construction activities shall adhere to the avoidance and minimization measures outlined in the USFWS 2011 Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance, outlined below:
 Project-related vehicles shall observe a 20-mph speed limit in all project areas, except on county roads and State and Federal highways; this is particularly important at night when kit foxes are most active. To the extent possible, night-time construction should be minimized. Off-road traffic outside of designated project areas shall be prohibited.  To prevent inadvertent entrapment of kit foxes or other animals during the construction phase of a project, all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than two feet deep shall be covered at the close of each working day by plywood or similar materials or provided with one or more escape ramps constructed of earth fill or wooden planks. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they shall be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. If at any time a trapped or injured kit fox is discovered, the USFWS shall be notified within three days of the discovery.  All food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps shall be disposed of in closed containers and removed at least once a week from a construction or project site.  No firearms or pets shall be allowed on the project site.

Use of rodenticides and herbicides in project areas should be restricted. This is necessary to prevent primary or secondary poisoning of kit foxes and the depletion of prey populations on which they depend. All uses of such compounds should observe label and other restrictions mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and other State and Federal legislation, as well as additional project-related restrictions deemed necessary by the Service. If rodent control must be conducted, zinc phosphide should be used because of proven lower risk to kit fox.

BIO-4 Preconstruction Survey for Swainson’s Hawk Nests and Avoidance Measures
To avoid impacts to nesting Swainson’s hawk, all construction activities shall be limited to the time period between September 15 and March 1. If construction activities cannot be completed within this timeframe, a protocol-level survey shall be conducted in accordance with the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley (Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee 2000). If nesting Swainson’s hawks are detected within 0.5 mile of project activities, CDFW shall be consulted regarding the establishment of an avoidance buffer. If construction activities are necessary within the buffer zone, monitoring of the nest site by a qualified biologist shall be required. If the biologist determines the nest is abandoned and the nestlings are still alive, the project sponsor shall fund the recovery and hacking (controlled City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
32 release of captive reared young) of the nestling(s). Construction activities occurring within the 0.5 mile radius of an active nest may require a 2081 Incidental Take Permit from the CDFW if there is the likelihood that construction would cause the failure or abandonment of the nest.

BIO-5 Nesting Birds
If construction occurs during the bird breeding season (February 1 to August 31), a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted to determine the presence/absence and locations of nesting birds. The nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified avian biologist no more than seven days prior to the start of ground disturbance or vegetation clearing. The nesting bird survey shall be conducted on foot inside the boundaries of the project site, including a 100-foot buffer (300-foot for raptors), and in inaccessible areas (e.g. private lands) from afar using binoculars to the extent practicable.

If an active bird nest is found during the nesting bird survey, an avoidance buffer (with its size dependent on the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside the project site) shall be established surrounding the nest(s) and flagged for avoidance until the nest becomes inactive (i.e., nest is vacated, juveniles have fledged, left the area, are no longer being fed by the parents, and there is no evidence of a second nesting attempt). All construction personnel shall be notified as to the existence of the buffer zone and to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No ground-disturbing activities shall occur inside this buffer until the avian biologist has confirmed that breeding/ nesting is completed, and the young have fledged the nest. Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist. The avoidance buffer area for nesting birds may be reduced upon the approval of the avian biologist as determined by the species nesting and the activity being conducted.

The methods and results of the nesting bird survey(s), any nesting bird avoidance efforts as a result of those surveys, and the success of the avoidance buffers, shall be documented in a letter report (Nesting Bird Survey and Active Nest Monitoring Report) and shall be submitted to the City no later than three weeks following the completion of active nest monitoring activities.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? There are no riparian habitats or sensitive natural communities located along the proposed trail alignment. Implementation of the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian or other sensitive natural communities.

NO IMPACT
c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Based on a review of the National Wetlands Inventory map, and confirmed during the site survey, one wetland feature exists adjacent to the project alignment, which is a 5.13 acre freshwater ponding basin located at the corner of W. Florence Avenue and S. West Avenue. The basin is owned and maintained by the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD). Per FMFCD policy, the basin is scraped every 3-5 years to prevent the buildup of heavy metals to levels requiring disposal Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 33
as a hazardous material. The project would involve construction of curb and gutters, streetlights, and the proposed trail at the corner of W. Florence Avenue and S. West Avenue.

For projects larger than 1 acre, a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) must be provided that includes an erosion control site plan that identifies best management practices (BMPs) such as soil control for the project perimeter, track out locations, concrete wash areas, and drop inlet protections. BMPs identified in the required SWPPP would be incorporated into the design and construction phase of the project to ensure that no pollutants or siltation drain into the ponding basin. Project design features such as fencing, appropriate drainage and incorporating detention basins shall assist in ensuring project-related impacts to wetland habitat are minimized and impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project 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? A wildlife corridor is an area of habitat, generally native, connecting wildlife populations, and a nursery site can be defined broadly as a place where young animals grow or are cared for. The project alignment is relatively fragmented by roads and within a landscape dominated by agriculture, residential, industrial, and commercial land uses. Due to the fragmentation, the project area lacks corridors for wildlife movement or exchange of individuals between populations, and there is likely little use of the project area as native wildlife nursery sites as a result of existing land uses. Impacts related to interference with migratory wildlife corridors or nursery site would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Fresno Municipal Code Section 13-305 states that existing preserved and landscaped trees within public property, including parkways, must be preserved. Section 13-305(k) discusses tree requirements in construction areas, which includes replacement and protection requirements.

The proposed trail alignment and final design details have not been finalized. Construction of the trail and other components may result in the removal of existing trees. If removals are required, the project would be required to comply with Fresno Municipal Code Section 13-305 which includes obtaining any necessary permits, implementing protection and guarding measures, and potential replacement requirements. Since the project would be subject to City Municipal Code requirements regarding tree preservation and would not conflict with any other local policies or ordinances for biological resources, impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
f. Would the project 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 site is located in an area that is covered by PG&E’s San Joaquin Valley Operation and Maintenance Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) (PG&E 2006). The HCP covers PG&E’s routine operations and maintenance activities, as well as minor new construction, on any PG&E gas and City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
34 electrical transmission and distribution facilities, easements, private access routes, or lands owned by PG&E. The proposed project would not be expected to conflict or interfere with the HCP activities.

The trail alignment is also located in the planning area of the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, which addresses recovery needs and goals for the San Joaquin kit fox, among other species. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5 would reduce potential project impacts to wildlife, including but not limited to the San Joaquin kit fox, covered by the Recovery Plan and their associated habitat, and require consultation with the USFWS if take of federally-listed species would occur. Thus, with implementation of these measures, the project would not be expected to conflict with the goals of the Recovery Plan.

There are no other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plans with which the project would have the potential to conflict.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Environmental Checklist
Cultural Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 35
5 Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5? □ □ □ ■
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5? □ □ ■ □
c. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? □ □ ■ □
Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared a Phase I cultural resources assessment for the project in October 2019. The purpose of the assessment was to document the results of the cultural resources records search, Native American outreach, and pedestrian field survey. The assessment is included as Appendix C.
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Rincon Consultants, Inc. conducted a search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) located at the California State University, Bakersfield on October 9, 2019. The search was performed to identify all previously recorded cultural resources, as well as previously conducted cultural resources studies within the project alignment and a 0.5-mile radius surrounding it. The CHRIS search included a review of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), the Office of Historic Preservation Historic Properties Directory, the California Inventory of Historic Resources, and the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility list.

The SSJVIC records search identified no previously recorded cultural resources within the project alignment. There are no structures on the project site that have the potential to be eligible as historic resources. The project site is not listed in the NRHP or the CRHR and does not appear to meet the criteria that would make it eligible for listing in either register. There would be no impact to historical resources.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
As discussed in checklist item a, the SSJVIC records search identified no previously recorded cultural resources within the project alignment. The potential to encounter subsurface archaeological resources within the project site or its immediate vicinity is very low. Nevertheless, because ground City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
36 disturbing activities and excavation is required for the project, there is the potential for archaeological resources to be discovered during project grading. Should resources be discovered, work would be temporarily halted by the on-site construction manager, a qualified archaeologist would be retained, and all federal, state, and local guidelines pertaining to the unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources would be adhered to (e.g. notification of applicable agencies, preservation, treatment, recovery procedures, etc.). Required adherence to existing regulations would reduce this impact to less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
During the grading phase, the project would result in ground disturbing and excavation activities. If human remains are found, the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the county coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the county coroner must be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a most likely descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site and make recommendations to the landowner within 48 hours of being granted access. Compliance with existing regulations, such as Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Cultural Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 37
This page intentionally left blank.

City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
38 6 Energy
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in a 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? □ □ □ ■
California is the fourth lowest per capita energy users in the United States, due to its energy efficiency programs and mild climate (United States Energy Information Administration [EIA] 2018).

California consumed 292,039 gigawatt-hours of electricity and 2,115 billion cubic feet of natural gas in 2017 (California Energy Commission [CEC] 2019, EIA 2018). The single largest end-use sector for energy consumption in California is transportation (40.3 percent), followed by industry (23.1 percent), commercial (18.7 percent), and residential (18.0 percent) (EIA 2018).

Most of California’s electricity is generated in-state with approximately 30 percent imported from the Northwest and Southwest in 2017 (CEC 2019). In addition, approximately 30 percent of California’s electricity supply comes from renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar photovoltaic, geothermal, and biomass (CEC 2019). Adopted on September 10, 2018, Senate Bill (SB) 100 accelerates the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standards Program, codified in the Public Utilities Act, by requiring electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.

To reduce statewide vehicle emissions, California requires all motorists use California Reformulated Gasoline, which is sourced almost exclusively from in-state refineries. Gasoline is the most used transportation fuel in California with 15.1 billion gallons sold in 2015 and is used by light-duty cars, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles (CEC 2016a). Diesel is the second most used fuel in California with 4.2 billion gallons sold in 2015 and is used primarily by heavy duty-trucks, delivery vehicles, buses, trains, ships, boats and barges, farm equipment, and heavy-duty construction and military vehicles (CEC 2016b). Both gasoline and diesel are primarily petroleum-based, and their consumption releases greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including CO2 and NOX. The transportation sector is the single largest source of GHG emissions in California, accounting for 41 percent of all inventoried emissions in 2016 (CARB 2018).

Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) is the primary provider of energy (electricity and natural gas services) for the city. According to the Fresno General Plan MEIR, based on the electrical demand factors provided by PG&E, the total electrical demand for the City is approximately 2,992 million kWh/year.

Total natural gas demand is approximately 159 million therms/year and the total yearly Environmental Checklist
Energy
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 39
consumption for vehicle fuels is approximately 184 million gallons/year based on an average of 18.2 miles per gallon.
a. Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Energy use during construction of the project would be primarily in the form of fuel consumption to operate heavy equipment, light-duty vehicles, machinery, and generators. Temporary grid power may also be provided to construction trailers or electric construction equipment. Energy use during construction would be temporary in nature, and construction equipment used would be typical of construction projects in the region including heavy machinery such as graders, excavators, loaders, asphalt pavers, back hoes, etc. During construction, the energy used would be minimal as this activity is temporary. During the operational phase, the trail would not require significant energy use as no public facilities are proposed with the exception of lighting. This would result in minimal energy consumption. Therefore, project construction would not result in a potential impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, and impacts would be less than significant.

Minor operational vehicle trips associated with maintenance of the trail and other components may occur, but as discussed in Section 17, Transportation, the number of operational vehicle trips would be minor. As such, the project would have no impact on operational energy use.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
As mentioned above, SB 100 mandates 100 percent clean electricity for California by 2045. Because the proposed project’s electric needs would be powered by the existing electricity grid, the project would eventually be powered by renewable energy mandated by SB 100 and would not conflict with this statewide plan. The City of Fresno does not have any specific renewable energy or energy efficiency plans with which the project could comply. Nonetheless, the project would not conflict with or obstruct the state plan for renewable energy; therefore, no impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
40 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 41
7 Geology and Soils
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

1. 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? □ □ □ ■

2. Strong seismic ground shaking? □ □ □ ■

3. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? □ □ □ ■

4. 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 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? □ ■ □ □
City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
42 a.1. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving 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? a.2. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? a.3. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? c. Would the project 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?
According to the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the closest known active fault to the area is the Nunez Fault approximately 50 miles to the southwest; the nearest Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone to the site is along the Nunez Fault. The project would not include construction of buildings that would be occupied by humans. According to the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Final EIR, the trail alignment is not located in an area that is susceptible to strong seismicity or liquefaction. Further, the design and construction of the trail and other components would be constructed in conformance with California Building Code (CBC) Title 24, which identifies specific construction design requirements to reduce damage from strong seismic ground shaking, ground failure, landslides, soil erosion, and expansive soils. Impacts related to exposure to fault rupture, ground shaking, and seismic related ground failure would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.4. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
The proposed alignment is located in an area that is topographically flat and there are no adjacent hillsides which pose landslide hazards. There would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Construction would involve soil disturbance, including grading and excavation. Potential impacts related to erosion are minimized using common and accepted practices to address runoff and storm water pollution prevention. For projects larger than 1 acre, a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) must be provided that includes an erosion control site plan that identifies best management practices (BMPs) such as soil control for the project perimeter, track out locations, concrete wash areas, and drop inlet protections. Compliance with these policies and with other pertinent regulations would ensure that potential soil erosion impacts, or the potential loss of topsoil, would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 43
The exact mix of soils on the project site is unknown at this time and expansive soils may occur.

Expansive soils are soils that are high in clays or silts and swell and shrink with wetting and drying, respectively. This shrinking and swelling can result in differential ground movement, which can cause damage to foundations. However, proper fill selection, moisture control, and compaction during construction can prevent these types of soils from causing significant damage. In compliance with Section 1803 of the CBC, the City of Fresno would be required to perform soil investigations by a registered engineer in order to determine the presence of expansive soils prior to construction. If the project site is determined to contain expansive soils, the City of Fresno would be required to provide design (especially foundation design) and construction solutions to reduce the risks associated with unstable and expansive soils. Therefore, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
e. Would the project 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?
The project would not require the use of septic systems or construct alternative wastewater disposal systems. As such, there would be no impact related to incapable soils for alternative waste systems.

NO IMPACT
f. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Paleontological resources are not known to be present on the site. However, since excavation is required, unanticipated paleontological resources could be discovered during project construction.

Impacts on previously unidentified paleontological resources would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure
With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, impacts pertaining to the potential discovery of paleontological resources would be less than significant, as all work would be temporarily halted, and adherence of to all federal, state, and local guidelines would be followed.

GEO-1 Unanticipated Discovery of Paleontological Resources If paleontological resources are discovered during excavation, grading, or construction, the construction manager shall immediately contact the City’s Planning and Development Department, and all work shall cease in the area of the find until a qualified paleontologist evaluates the find.

Work shall not resume until authorized by the Planning Manager and the qualified paleontologist.

The paleontologist shall determine the location, the time frame, and the extent to which any monitoring of earthmoving activities shall be required. Found deposits shall be treated in accordance with federal, State, and local guidelines, including those set forth in California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2.

In the event an unanticipated fossil discovery is made during the course of project development, then in accordance with SVP (2010) guidelines, it is the responsibility of any worker who observes fossils within the project site to stop work in the immediate vicinity of the find and notify a qualified professional paleontologist who shall be retained to evaluate the discovery, determine its City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
44 significance and if additional mitigation or treatment is warranted. Work within 100 feet of the discovery will resume once the find is properly documented and authorization is given to resume construction work. Any significant paleontological resources found during construction monitoring will be prepared, identified, analyzed, and permanently curated in an approved regional museum repository.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 45
This page intentionally left blank.

City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
46 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment? □ □ ■ □
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases? □ □ □ ■
Climate Change Background
Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans along with other substantial changes in climate (such as wind patterns, precipitation, and storms) over an extended period of time. Climate change is the result of numerous, cumulative sources of greenhouse gases (GHGs). GHGs contribute to the “greenhouse effect,” which is a natural occurrence that helps regulate the temperature of the planet. The majority of radiation from the Sun hits the Earth’s surface and warms it. The surface in turn radiates heat back towards the atmosphere, known as infrared radiation. Gases and clouds in the atmosphere trap and prevent some of this heat from escaping back into space and re-radiate it in all directions. This process is essential to supporting life on Earth because it warms the planet by approximately 60° Fahrenheit.

Emissions from human activities since the beginning of the industrial revolution (approximately 250 years ago) are adding to the natural greenhouse effect by increasing the gases in the atmosphere that trap heat, thereby contributing to an average increase in the Earth’s temperature.

GHGs occur naturally and from human activities. Human activities that produce GHGs are the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas for heating and electricity, gasoline and diesel for transportation); methane from landfill wastes and raising livestock; deforestation activities; and some agricultural practices. GHGs produced by human activities include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Emissions of GHGs affect the atmosphere directly by changing its chemical composition while changes to the land surface indirectly affect the atmosphere by changing the way in which the Earth absorbs gases from the atmosphere. Potential impacts of global climate change in California may include loss of snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years.

Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 47
Regulatory Framework
Federal Regulations
The U.S. Supreme Court in Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. ([2007] 549 U.S. 05-1120) held that the U.S. EPA has the authority to regulate motor-vehicle GHG emissions under the federal Clean Air Act. The U.S. EPA issued a Final Rule for mandatory reporting of GHG emissions in October 2009. This Final Rule applies to fossil fuel suppliers, industrial gas suppliers, direct GHG emitters, and manufacturers of heavy-duty and off-road vehicles and vehicle engines and requires annual reporting of emissions. In 2012 the U.S. EPA issued a Final Rule that establishes the GHG permitting thresholds that determine when Clean Air Act permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities.

In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (134 S. Ct. 2427 [2014]) held that U.S. EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source required to obtain a PSD or Title V permit. The Court also held that PSD permits that are otherwise required (based on emissions of other pollutants) may continue to require limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT).

California Regulations
California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for the coordination and oversight of State and local air pollution control programs in California. California has numerous regulations aimed at reducing the state’s GHG emissions. These initiatives are summarized below.

CALIFORNIA ADVANCED CLEAN CARS PROGRAM
Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (2002), California’s Advanced Clean Cars program (referred to as “Pavley”), requires CARB to develop and adopt regulations to achieve “the maximum feasible and costeffective reduction of GHG emissions from motor vehicles.” On June 30, 2009, U.S. EPA granted the waiver of Clean Air Act preemption to California for its greenhouse gas emission standards for motor vehicles beginning with the 2009 model year. Pavley I regulates model years from 2009 to 2016 and Pavley II, which is now referred to as “LEV (Low Emission Vehicle) III GHG” regulates model years from 2017 to 2025. The Advanced Clean Cars program coordinates the goals of the Low Emissions Vehicles (LEV), Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEV), and Clean Fuels Outlet programs, and would provide major reductions in GHG emissions. By 2025, when the rules will be fully implemented, new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer GHGs and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions from their model year 2016 levels (CARB 2011).

ASSEMBLY BILL 32
California’s major initiative for reducing GHG emissions is outlined in Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,” signed into law in 2006. AB 32 codifies the statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and requires CARB to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the main State strategies for reducing GHGs to meet the 2020 deadline.

In addition, AB 32 requires CARB to adopt regulations to require reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. Based on this guidance, CARB approved a 1990 statewide GHG level and 2020 limit of 427 MMT CO2e. The Scoping Plan was approved by CARB on December 11, 2008, and City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
48 included measures to address GHG emission reduction strategies related to energy efficiency, water use, and recycling and solid waste, among other measures. Many of the GHG reduction measures included in the Scoping Plan (e.g., Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Advanced Clean Car standards, and Cap-and-Trade) have been adopted since approval of the Scoping Plan.

In May 2014, CARB approved the first update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan. The 2013 Scoping Plan update defines CARB’s climate change priorities for the next five years and sets the groundwork to reach post-2020 statewide goals. The update highlights California’s progress toward meeting the “near-term” 2020 GHG emission reduction goals defined in the original Scoping Plan. It also evaluates how to align the State’s longer-term GHG reduction strategies with other State policy priorities, such as for water, waste, natural resources, clean energy and transportation, and land use (CARB 2014).

SENATE BILL 97
Senate Bill (SB) 97, signed in August 2007, acknowledges that climate change is an environmental issue that requires analysis in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents. In March 2010, the California Resources Agency (Resources Agency) adopted amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions. The adopted guidelines give lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHG and climate change impacts.

SENATE BILL 375
SB 375, signed in August 2008, enhances the state’s ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing CARB to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from passenger vehicles by 2020 and 2035. In addition, SB 375 directs each of the state’s 18 major Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to prepare a “sustainable communities strategy” (SCS) that contains a growth strategy to meet these emission targets for inclusion in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). On March 22, 2018, CARB adopted updated regional targets for reducing GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and 2035.

SENATE BILL 32
On September 8, 2016, the governor signed Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) into law, extending AB 32 by requiring the State to further reduce GHGs to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (the other provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged). On December 14, 2017, CARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the 2030 GHG target. The 2017 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the Cap-and-Trade Program, as well as implementation of recently adopted policies and policies, such as SB 350 and SB 1383 (see below). The 2017 Scoping Plan also puts an increased emphasis on innovation, adoption of existing technology, and strategic investment to support its strategies. As with the 2013 Scoping Plan Update, the 2017 Scoping Plan does not provide project-level thresholds for land use development. Instead, it recommends that local governments adopt policies and locally-appropriate quantitative thresholds consistent with a statewide per capita goal of six metric tons (MT) CO2e by 2030 and two MT CO2e by 2050 (CARB 2017). As stated in the 2017 Scoping Plan, these goals may be appropriate for plan-level analyses (city, county, subregional, or regional level), but not for specific individual projects because they include all emissions sectors in the State (CARB 2017).

Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 49
SENATE BILL 1383
Adopted in September 2016, SB 1383 requires CARB to approve and begin implementing a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants. The bill requires the strategy to achieve the following reduction targets by 2030:
 Methane – 40 percent below 2013 levels
 Hydrofluorocarbons – 40 percent below 2013 levels
 Anthropogenic black carbon – 50 percent below 2013 levels The bill also requires the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), in consultation with the CARB, to adopt regulations that achieve specified targets for reducing organic waste in landfills.

SENATE BILL 100
Adopted on September 10, 2018, SB 100 supports the reduction of GHG emissions from the electricity sector by accelerating the state’s Renewables Portfolio Standard Program, which was last updated by SB X 1-2 in 2011. SB 100 requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.

EXECUTIVE ORDER B-55-18
On September 10, 2018, the governor issued Executive Oder B-55-18, which established a new statewide goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 and maintaining net negative emissions thereafter. This goal is in addition to the existing statewide GHG reduction targets established by SB 375, SB 32, SB 1383, and SB 100.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Pursuant to the requirements of SB 97, the Resources Agency has adopted amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions.

The adopted CEQA Guidelines provide general regulatory guidance on the analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions in CEQA documents, while giving lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHGs and climate change impacts. To date, a variety of air districts have adopted quantitative significance thresholds for GHGs.

Local Regulations
FRESNO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS FRESNO COUNTY 2018 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION

PLAN/SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY
The Final 2018 Regional Transportation Plan for Fresno County (RTP) adopted by Fresno COG meets Senate Bill 375 requirements to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). The SCS includes active transportation as a key element to reduce greenhouse gases, reduce roadway congestion, and increases health and the quality of life of residents, and refers to projects that would enhance walking and biking facilities. The Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project is a planned active transportation project in the Fresno COG 2018 RTP/SCS (Fresno COG 2017).

City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
50 CITY OF FRESNO GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION PLAN
The Fresno General Plan and Master EIR (MEIR) State Clearinghouse (SCH) #: 2012111015 discusses implementation of the city’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GGRP) which can be found in Appendix F of the city’s General Master Plan. The GHG Plan focuses on emissions generated by activities under the control or influence of the City. The GHG Plan is designed to ensure that the development accommodated by the buildout of the Fresno General Plan supports the goals of Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (Fresno 2014a). This GGRP would reduce community‐related and City operations‐related greenhouse gas emissions to a degree that would not hinder or delay implementation of AB 32.

The 2014 GGRP was adopted prior to the signing of SB 32. Therefore, the 2014 GGRP is not considered “qualified” to determine the significance of a project, according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, as it does not align with the current state targets. Although the Fresno 2014 GGRP is not “qualified” under CEQA, the included GHG reduction strategies are intended to reduce overall GHG emissions, consistent with the Fresno General Plan.

Methodology and Significance Thresholds
Methodology
This section describes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project.

GHG EMISSIONS
Criteria pollutant emissions are reported as the worst-case daily emissions. The analysis focuses on CO2, CH4, and N2O because these represent most of the project’s GHG emissions, which would result from operation of construction equipment and associated vehicle trips. The remaining GHG pollutants are associated with industrial processes and, as a recreational trail, the potential for such emissions from the project would be minimal.

DETERMINING EMISSIONS
CalEEMod version 2016.3.2 was used to estimate construction emissions for the proposed project, using the same assumptions as described in Section 3, Air Quality. Operational GHG emissions associated with trail lighting are estimated assuming that lights will operate on average 12.5 hours per day, each day of the year.

DETERMINING THRESHOLDS
Neither the SJVAPCD, Fresno COG, nor the City of Fresno have adopted an evidence-based numeric threshold consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan and the state’s long-term GHG reduction goals.

SJVAPCD has recommends use of performance based standard thresholds; however, these thresholds would not be applicable to the project, as SJVAPCD has not established Best Performance Standards (BPS) specific to active transportation projects. Therefore, a net zero emissions threshold will be utilized as a threshold for determination of significance for the project.

Net-Zero Emissions
A screening level of net zero emissions for ongoing, annual operational emissions is consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan. The 2017 Scoping Plan recognizes that achieving no net increase in ongoing operational GHG emissions compared to existing conditions would demonstrate that a project is not Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 51
contributing to climate change impacts, and it is a recommended objective for land use development projects that are able to feasibly achieve this goal (CARB 2017). This methodology and threshold were chosen for the proposed project since the SJVAPCD does not have a numeric threshold. This is a widely accepted approach with the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) planning area (Fortag 2019). Therefore, the project would not result in a significant impact on the environment if GHG emissions would result in zero net additional GHG emissions compared to the existing conditions baseline. However, the inability of a project to mitigate its GHG emissions to net zero does not imply the project results in a substantial contribution to the cumulatively significant environmental impact of climate change under CEQA.

SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
The significance of the proposed project’s GHG emissions is based on screening level of net-zero operational emissions and consistency with the regional plans to reduce GHG emissions, the 2014 GGRP and Fresno COG RTP/SCS.
a. Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Construction
The proposed project has the potential to generate GHG emissions construction from operation of heavy construction equipment and truck and vehicle trips. The GHG emissions estimated for construction of the project were estimated using CalEEMod, Version 2016.3.2 and the same assumptions as the air quality analysis, as presented in Section 3, Air Quality. Modeling results are provided in Appendix A. Construction of the proposed project would generate of a total of approximately 148 MT CO2e over the approximately seven-month construction period, as shown in Table 6.

For comparison, in 2010, counties within the City of Fresno emitted 3,745,116 MT CO2e of GHGs (Fresno 2014a). Project construction would result in the one-time contribution of approximately

0.004 percent of annual regional GHG emissions. As such, construction of the project would result in a nominal one-time contribution to regional GHG emissions.

Operation
Operation of the proposed project would not generate significant GHG emissions. No new or expanded parking facilities would be provided to accommodate trail visitors; thus, no net increase in vehicle trips to and from the trail is anticipated. As described in the Project Description, no new trail amenities requiring water are proposed, and new trail lighting and street lights would provide the only source of GHG emissions through electricity use. This energy used for lighting would generate less than 1 MT of CO2e per year. Ultimately, the project is not anticipated to result in a net increase in GHG emissions as regional VMT is anticipated to decrease as a result of the project because the project would provide new opportunities for active transportation. The actual amount of VMT reductions is not known, however only a slight reduction in VMT each year would offset the small amount of GHG emissions generated through project lighting. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not result in new, ongoing GHG emissions having a significant impact on the environment.

Additionally, the Fresno COG 2018 RTP/SCS is the regional planning document to reduce GHG emissions related to transportation in the region. The Fresno COG 2018 RTP/SCS includes active City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
52 transportation as a key element to reduce greenhouse gases, reduce roadway congestion, and increases health and the quality of life of residents, and includes the Southwest Fresno Green Trail project as one of the planned active transportation projects. Therefore, the proposed project would implement a planned active transportation facility that would assist in the implementation of the Fresno COG 2018 RTP/SCS.

In summary, the project would result in a temporary one-time contribution of 148 MT CO2e during construction, but the project would not result in a net increase in ongoing annual GHG emissions compared to existing site conditions. The proposed project implements a goal of the Fresno COG 2018 RTP/SCS to increase active transportation opportunities. GHG emissions are ultimately anticipated to decrease under operation of the project as area vehicle trips are replaced by active transportation. Therefore, GHG emissions from the project would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Table 6 Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
Emission Source Annual Emissions (CO2e in metric tons)
Construction 148.3
Operational
Streetlights <1
Total 148.3
See Appendix A for CalEEMod worksheets and calculations for streetlight/trail light electricity use emissions. b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
As discussed above, the City of Fresno has adopted a Greenhouse Gas Reduction plan—the 2014 GGRP—which was required by the Fresno General Plan. Project consistency with applicable measures contained in the 2014 GGRP and associated Fresno General Plan objectives is summarized in Table 7.

Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 53
Table 7 Project Consistency with 2014 GGRP and General Plan 2014 GGRP Measure General Plan Policy/Objective Project Consistency Pedestrian Oriented Development
Providing pedestrian-friendly
infrastructure such as sidewalks,
paths, and direct connections to
neighboring uses such as shopping,
schools, libraries, and parks increase
the potential for people to make trips
on foot instead of car.

Policy UF-12-e Access to Activity
Centers
Objective UF-14 Create and urban
form to facilitate multi-modal
connectivity.

Policy UF-14-a Local Street
Connectivity
Consistent. The project would
provide a direct and safe pedestrian
path from the communities on West
Church Avenue, near the West Park
Community, to Franklin School,
Edison High School, and the West
Fresno Branch Library.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure
Adequate pedestrian infrastructure
connecting frequently accessed
destinations and bicycle
infrastructure including separate
bicycle paths and bike lanes.

Objective MT-4 Establish and
maintain a continuous, safe and
easily accessible bikeways system
throughout the metropolitan area.

Policy MT-4-a Bicycle, Pedestrian and
Trails Master Plan
Policy MT-4-b Bikeway
Improvements
Policy MT-4-c Bikeway Linkages
Objective MT-6 Establish a network
of multi-purpose pedestrian and
bicycle paths to link residential areas
to local and regional open space and
urban Activity Centers.

Policy MT-6-a Link Residences to
Destinations
Policy POSS-7-h Interlink City and San
Joaquin River Parkway Trail Networks
Consistent. The proposed project is
an active transportation project that
connects residents to the Franklin
School, Edison High School, and West
Fresno Branch Library. The project
provides a safe route for pedestrians
and bicyclists that shortens travel
distances.

GGRP = Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan
Source: Fresno 2014a
As shown in Table 7, the project is consistent with the relevant Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies in the 2014 GGRP, which, by extension, are consistent with the Fresno General Plan.

Additionally, the project is consistent with the Fresno 2018 COG RTP/SCS as the project is included in the Fresno COG 2018 RTP/SCS as a planned active transportation project, as shown in Figure 4- 13(a) of the Fresno COG 2018 RTP/SCS, and is designed to reduce GHG emissions through increased utilization of active transportation (Fresno COG 2017). Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The project would have no impact.

NO IMPACT
City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
54 This page left intentionally blank.

Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 55
9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
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

0.25 mile of an existing or proposed
school? □ □ ■ □
d. Be located on a site that is included on a
list of hazardous material 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 in 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. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? □ □ □ ■
g. Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires? □ □ □ ■
City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
56 a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Would the project 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?
Construction and operation of the project would not involve the use or transport of hazardous materials beyond those used in operation of typical construction equipment or typical landscaping materials. Materials used for construction would be transported to and within the project site for regular construction activities, and may include: diesel fuel, lubricants, adhesives, cleaning solutions, and chemical toilets.

Hazardous materials use and transport during both construction and operation of the project would comply with pertinent federal, state, and City regulations regarding their storage, on-site use, and off-site disposal such as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Material Management Act, and the California Code of Regulations, Title 22. Compliance with applicable regulations would ensure the project has a less than significant impact.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? The nearest schools to the project are Bethune Elementary School, Franklin School, and Edison High School. These schools are located 0.3 mi, 0.13 mi, and 0.25 mi away, respectively. As discussed in checklist items a and b, although potentially hazardous materials such as fuels, lubricants, solvents, and oils could be used during construction and operation of the proposed project, the transport, use, and storage of any and all hazardous materials would be conducted in accordance with all applicable State and federal laws, as discussed in checklist items a and b. The proposed recreational project would not involve the use of large quantities of hazardous materials; therefore, impacts associated with hazardous emissions and hazardous materials near a school would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material 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?
Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) for the proposed project in October 2019. The analysis below is based primarily on the Phase I ESA prepared for the project, which is included as Appendix D.

As discussed in the Phase I ESA, a regulatory database search was conducted by Environmental Data Resources (EDR) for sites that generate, store, treat or dispose of hazardous materials or sites for which a release or incident has occurred. The search was conducted for the proposed trail alignment and included data from surrounding sites within a specified radius of the property. The proposed trail alignment was not listed in regulatory databases searched by EDR. Several adjacent properties were listed on both release and non-release databases.

Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 57
Based on information available through EDR and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker online database, residual contamination may exist at the following upgradient and adjacent former release sites: 437 and 317 W. California Avenue, as well as the associated Fresno Housing Authority Brownfields sites located at 205-437 W. California Avenue and 2141 S. Fruit Avenue. The former release cases have been “closed” under the oversight of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB); however, there may be the potential for residual impacts or runoff from these sites to exist within the proposed trail alignment.

Additionally, there are two facilities located adjacent to the south of the proposed trail alignment which are associated with multiple underground storage tanks (USTs) and aboveground storage tanks (ASTs): Zacky Farms/Foster Farms Belgravia Plant (900 W. Belgravia Avenue) and Ortega’s Meat, Harvey By-Products Co. (2316 S. Fruit Avenue). Neither of the facilities were listed on an unauthorized release database or GeoTracker.

Lastly, according to EDR, Triangle Cleaners (50 Fresno Street) operated in 1970 as a cleaners and dyers. It is unknown if Triangle Cleaners operated as a dry-cleaning facility and the facility was not listed on a release database.

Historical sources reviewed as part of the Phase I ESA include aerial photographs and topographic maps. The photos and maps reviewed indicate that the proposed trail alignment has been adjacent to a drainage channel since approximately 1923. The ponding basin is apparent in the 1967 aerial photograph. The drainage channel appears to have historically flowed northeast-southwest toward the basin. Aerial photographs indicate that properties adjacent to the proposed trail alignment have historically been used for both agricultural and industrial purposes.

Based on the findings of this Phase I ESA, Rincon Consultants, Inc. concluded two Recognized Environmental Conditions near the project site (historical presence of the Fanning ditch and Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District ponding basin and historical adjacent agricultural and industrial land use).

Excavation and soil disturbance is proposed in areas where contaminated soils may potentially be present. This is a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measure
The following mitigation measure is required to ensure that sampling is conducted and that necessary remediation and clean up procedures are undertaken.

HAZ-1 Soil Sampling and Soil Management Plan
Prior to any ground disturbing activities, soil samples shall be collected in areas of proposed soil disturbance and excavations. Shallow soil samples shall be analyzed for organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), heavy metals, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs).

If deeper excavations are planned in the vicinity of the drainage pond, then additional soil or sediment samples shall be collected from the total depth of the planned excavations. Based on the results of the soil sample laboratory analysis and if contamination levels exceed the established screening levels set by the local oversight agency, a Soil Management Plan (SMP) shall be prepared and implemented. The SMP shall include a performance standard set by the local oversight agency that contamination levels must be reduced to. By implementing the SMP, any potential contamination that exists on-site would be excavated, remediated, and/or removed in accordance with Federal, State, and local regulations such that no exposure in exceedance of allowed standards would occur.

City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
58 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
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? The project does not propose habitable structures for residing or workplace opportunities. The proposed trail alignment is located approximately a half mile south of the Fresno Chandler Municipal Airport and is located in the Traffic Pattern Zone, which is the outermost classified Safety Zone of the Fresno Chandler Airport (FCOG 2018). Although the trail would be located within a designated safety zone where aircrafts would fly overhead, the project does not involve the construction of any structures or features that would subject users of the trail to substantial safety risks. In addition, the project does not propose high intensity uses, hazards to flight, or structures over 100 feet tall that would require Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) review. The proposed alignment is located outside of the 60 and 65 CNEL future noise contours (FCOG 2018). Impacts related to exposure to safety hazards or excessive aviation related noise would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
As discussed in Section 17, Transportation, of this Initial Study, the proposed project is forecast to result in no significant traffic impacts. The project would not substantially alter the amount or arrangement of development on the project site compared to existing conditions, and the proposed alignment does not pass through any existing adopted emergency response/evacuation routes. The project would be required to conform to applicable California Fire Code standards. Submittal of plans in conformance with California Fire Code standards would be a condition of project approval and compliance would be confirmed as part of the Building and Safety plan check process.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and no impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
The project does not propose housing or other habitable structures. Based on the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps, the proposed trail alignment is not located in a Moderate, High, or Very High fire hazard severity zone (CALFire 2007).

Further, as discussed in the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Final EIR, there are no wildland areas in the Specific Plan area (City of Fresno 2017). There would be no impact related to exposure of people or structures to wildland fire hazards.

NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 59
10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water 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 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? □ □ ■ □
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? □ □ □ ■
City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
60 a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?

CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
Clearing, grading, excavation, and construction activities could impact water quality through soil erosion and increased silt and debris discharged into runoff. Additionally, the use of construction materials such as fuels, solvents, and paints may present a risk to surface water quality. Temporary storage of construction materials and equipment in work areas or staging areas could involve a release of hazardous materials, trash, or sediment to the storm drain system. The project would involve grading and painting activities, including grading along the adjacent FMFCD ponding basin located northeast of the intersection of W. Florence Avenue and S. West Avenue. As discussed in Section 4, Biological Resources, for projects larger than 1 acre, a SWPPP would be prepared and implemented as part of the project. The SWPPP would identify best management practices (BMPs) (silt fencing, straw waddles, etc.) which would be incorporated into the design and construction phase of the project to ensure that no pollutants or siltation drain into the ponding basin and/or other waterways. BMPs and associated project design features such as fencing, appropriate drainage and incorporating detention basins would assist in ensuring the project does not degrade surface or groundwater quality and reduce impacts to less than significant.

OPERATIONAL IMPACTS
The project would consist of a Class I trail that does not involve the construction of a use or facility with a demand for water or which would degrade water quality or availability in the area. Surface water/runoff is anticipated to flow to the southwest in Fanning Ditch, according to the Phase I ESA prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. The Southwest Fresno Specific Plan indicates the entire project area is served by FMFCD retention basins. Land developed within these areas are within the FMFCD Master Plan area and is exempt from further water quality requirements provided that the FMFCDs Storm Water Quality Management Plan is implemented (City of Fresno 2017). Basins are highly effective at reducing average concentrations of a broad range of contaminants, including several polyaromatic hydrocarbons, total suspended solids, and most metals. Pollutants are removed by filtration through soil, and thus don’t reach the groundwater aquifer. Basins are built to design criteria exceeding Statewide Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan standards. The urban flood control system provides treatment for all types of development. Therefore, impacts during the operational phase are less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
c.(i) Would the project 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?
c.(ii) Would the project 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 substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 61
c.(iii) Would the project 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 that would 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?
c.(iv) Would the project 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 impede or redirect flood flows? As discussed in Impact 10a, the project does not involve the construction of a use or facility that would demand water usage. As such, no substantial decrease in groundwater supplies would occur.

The increase in impervious pavement from the construction of the asphalt pavement for the trail would potentially impede upon groundwater recharge, however, anticipated runoff would flow into the surrounding landscaped areas and existing Fanning Ditch, which would not interfere with groundwater recharge.

The project would not substantially alter existing drainage patterns of the site or area or substantially increase the rate or amount of runoff in a manner which would result in flooding, exceed planned storm water drainage systems, or provide substantial sources of polluted runoff.

Therefore, impacts to groundwater supply and existing drainage patterns are less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
The project is not located within a flood prone or hazard area. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood maps indicate the trail is located within a Zone X which are areas of 0.2% annual chance (500-year) flood. The Fanning Ditch which is directly adjacent to the trail alignment is within a Zone AE which has a Base Flood Elevation of 513 feet and the water-surface elevation of the 1% annual chance (100-year) flood (FEMA 2019).

A seiche is a surface wave created when an inland water body is shaken, usually by an earthquake.

The nearest water body to the project capable of generating a seiche is Big Dry Creek Reservoir approximately 13 miles to the northeast. The trail alignment is not in the dam inundation area for Big Dry Creek Dam according the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Final EIR (City of Fresno 2017).

A tsunami is an ocean wave caused by a sudden displacement of the ocean floor, most often due to earthquakes. The project is approximately 107 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean. There is no tsunami flood hazard within or near the trail alignment (City of Fresno 2017).

Therefore, the project would not result in the release of pollutants as it is not located in a potential flood hazard, tsunami or seiche zone. No impacts would occur.

NO IMPACT
e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The City of Fresno is within the Tulare Lake Basin and is under the jurisdiction of the Central Valley RWQCB (Region 5). The Central Valley RWQCB Region is divided into three basins, the Sacramento City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
62 River Basin, San Joaquin River Basin, and Tulare Lake Basin in which the project is located (City of Fresno 2017).

The Central Valley RWQCB monitors surface water quality through implementation of the Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin (Basin Plan) and designates beneficial uses for surface water bodies and groundwater in the Basin. The Basin Plan also contains water quality criteria for groundwater. As mentioned in Impact 10a, the project does not involve the construction of a use or facility that would demand water usage. As such, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. No impacts would occur.

NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 63
This page intentionally left blank.

City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
64 11 Land Use and Planning
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
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? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project physically divide an established community? The project would be located along the existing Fanning Ditch from S. Thorne Avenue to the east and S. Fruit Avenue to the west. The project is located within a primarily urbanized area of Fresno and runs through a mixed-use community surrounded by residential, office, open space and institutional uses as indicated in the Fresno General Plan map in Figure 5 and zoning map shown in Figure 6. The project is also located within the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan and designates the trail alignment as a planned Class I Trail (City of Fresno 2017). Surrounding the project site are single family communities, commercial development, and vacant undeveloped lands. The project would construct a Class I trail that includes improvements such as new street and trail lights, curb and gutters, new ADA compliant curb ramps, and landscaping along the trail adjacent to Fanning Ditch.

This would provide a pedestrian-friendly and biking accessible trail along currently vacant and underutilized parcels. Therefore, the project would not physically divide an established community.

No impacts would occur.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project 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?
The project is located within the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan area which includes a limited bicycle and trail network within the project site and surrounding areas. Figure 5-2 of the Specific Plan’s Existing and Planned Bicycle and Trail Network map shows the project is a Planned Class I Multi-Use Trail (City of Fresno 2017a). The project would facilitate future connectivity through bicycle and pedestrian integration with adjacent lands through utilization of the concept of Complete Streets. The trail improvements are also consistent with the planned Class I Trail segment designated in the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan. Therefore, the project is consistent with the Specific Plan objectives and policies and would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of the City of Fresno. No impacts would occur.

NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Land Use and Planning
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 65
This page intentionally left blank.

City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
66 12 Mineral Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
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? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project 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. Would the project 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? The City of Fresno permits mining only within the Mining Overlay District (Citywide Development Code). The proposed trail alignment is not located in a Mining Overlay District (City of Fresno 2019).

The project site is located in an area classified as Mineral Resource Zone -3, which is defined as potential, but unproven mineral resource reserves (State of California, Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 99-02; City of Fresno 2017). Because the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources, there would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Mineral Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 67
This page intentionally left blank.

City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
68 13 Noise
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project result in:
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? □ □ ■ □
Background
Noise
Sound is a vibratory disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source, which is capable of being detected by the hearing organs. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. The effects of noise on people can include general annoyance, interference with speech communication, sleep disturbance, and, in the extreme, hearing impairment (Caltrans 2013a).

Noise levels are commonly measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The A-weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound pressure levels so that they are consistent with the human hearing response. Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale that quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquake magnitudes. A doubling of the energy of a noise source, such as doubling of traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3 dB; dividing the energy in half would result in a 3 dB decrease (Crocker 2007).

Human perception of noise has no simple correlation with sound energy: the perception of sound is not linear in terms of dBA or in terms of sound energy. Two sources do not “sound twice as loud” as one source. It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear can barely perceive changes of 3 dBA, increase or decrease (i.e., twice the sound energy); that a change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible Environmental Checklist
Noise
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 69
(8 times the sound energy); and that an increase (or decrease) of 10 dBA sounds twice (half) as loud (10.5 times the sound energy) (Crocker 2007).

Sound changes in both level and frequency spectrum as it travels from the source to the receiver.

The most obvious change is the decrease in level as the distance from the source increases. The manner by which noise reduces with distance depends on factors such as the type of sources (e.g., point or line, the path the sound will travel, site conditions, and obstructions). Noise levels from a point source typically attenuate, or drop off, at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance (e.g., construction, industrial machinery, ventilation units). Noise from a line source (e.g., roadway, pipeline, railroad) typically attenuates at about 3 dBA per doubling of distance (Caltrans 2013a).

Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; the amount of attenuation provided by this “shielding” depends on the size of the object and the frequencies of the noise levels. Natural terrain features such as hills and dense woods, and man-made features such as buildings and walls, can significantly alter noise levels. Generally, any large structure blocking the line of sight will provide at least a 5-dBA reduction in source noise levels at the receiver (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] 2017). Structures can substantially reduce exposure to noise as well. The FHWA’s guidelines indicate that modern building construction generally provides an exterior-tointerior noise level reduction of 20 to 35 dBA with closed windows.

The impact of noise is not a function of loudness alone. The time of day when noise occurs and the duration of the noise are also important factors of project noise impact. Most noise that lasts for more than a few seconds is variable in its intensity. Consequently, a variety of noise descriptors have been developed. One of the most frequently used noise metrics is the equivalent noise level (Leq); it considers both duration and sound power level. Leq is defined as the single steady A-weighted level equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual fluctuating levels over time. Typically, Leq is summed over a one-hour period. Lmax is the highest root mean squared (RMS) sound pressure level within the sampling period, and Lmin is the lowest RMS sound pressure level within the measuring period (Crocker 2007).

Noise that occurs at night tends to be more disturbing than that occurring during the day.

Community noise is usually measured using Day-Night Average Level (LDN), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.); it is also measured using Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a +5 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (Caltrans 2013a). Noise levels described by LDN and CNEL usually differ by about 1 dBA. The relationship between the peak-hour Leq value and the LDN/CNEL depends on the distribution of traffic during the day, evening, and night.

Quiet suburban areas typically have CNEL noise levels in the range of 40 to 50 dBA, while areas near arterial streets are in the 50 to 60-plus CNEL range. Normal conversational levels are in the 60 to 65-dBA Leq range; ambient noise levels greater than 65 dBA Leq can interrupt conversations (Federal Transit Administration [FTA] 2018).

Some land uses are more sensitive to ambient noise levels than other uses due to the amount of noise exposure and the types of activities involved. For example, residences, motels, hotels, schools, libraries, churches, nursing homes, auditoriums, museums, cultural facilities, parks, and outdoor recreation areas are more sensitive to noise than commercial and industrial land uses.

Vibration
Vibration is a unique form of noise because its energy is carried through buildings, structures, and the ground, whereas sound is simply carried through the air. Thus, vibration is generally felt rather City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
70 than heard. Some vibration effects can be caused by noise (e.g., the rattling of windows from passing trucks). This phenomenon is caused by the coupling of the acoustic energy at frequencies that are close to the resonant frequency of the material being vibrated. Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by manmade activities attenuates rapidly as distance from the source of the vibration increases.

Existing Noise Environment
The most common and primary existing sources of noise along the project alignment are motor vehicle traffic (e.g., automobiles, buses, trucks, and motorcycles) along primary roadways, including West California Avenue and South Fruit Avenue, and truck circulation associated with industrial and manufacturing land uses south of West Florence Avenue near the proposed trail’s western terminus. Motor vehicle noise is of concern because it is characterized by a high number of individual events, which often create a sustained noise level, and because of its proximity to noise sensitive uses. Through residential areas, noise along the project alignment would be characterized by sources typical of residential neighborhoods, including light vehicular traffic, car doors opening and closing, conversation, children playing, and dogs barking. Additionally, the site is located approximately 0.5 mile south of the Fresno Chandler Executive Airport, within the airport influence area (Fresno COG 2018). However, according to the Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, no portion of the project alignment is within the airport’s present or future 60 or 65 CNEL noise contours (Fresno COG 2018).

Regulatory Framework
Noise
The Fresno General Plan Noise and Safety Element includes objectives and policies to protect public health and welfare from excessive noise (Fresno 2014b). The Noise and Safety Element provides an approach to regulate noise through community planning and includes the following noise standards for transportation (Table 8) and stationary sources (Table 9).

Table 8 Transportation (Non-Aircraft) Noise Sources
Noise-Sensitive Land Use
Outdoor Activity Areas1
Ldn/CNEL, dB
Interior Spaces
Ldn/CNEL, dB Leq dB2
Residential 65 45 −
Transient Lodging 65 45 −
Hospitals, Nursing Homes 65 45 −
Theaters, Auditoriums, Music Halls − − 35
Churches, Meeting Halls 65 − 45
Office Buildings − − 45
Schools, Libraries, Museums − − 45
1 Where the location of outdoor activity areas is unknown or is not applicable, the exterior noise level standard shall be applied to the property line of the receiving land use.
2 As determined for a typical worst-case hour during periods of use.

Source: Fresno General Plan, Noise and Safety Element, Table 9-2 (Fresno 2014b) Environmental Checklist
Noise
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 71
Table 9 Stationary Noise Sources
Noise Metric
Daytime
(7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.)
Nighttime
(10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.)
Hourly Equivalent Sound Level (Leq), dBA 50 45
Maximum Sound Level (Lmax), dBA 70 60
The Department of Development and Resource Management Director, on a case-by-case basis, may designate land uses other than those shown in this table to be noise-sensitive, and may require appropriate noise mitigation measures.

As determined at outdoor activity areas. Where the location of outdoor activity areas is unknown or not applicable, the noise exposure standard shall be applied at the property line of the receiving land use. When ambient noise levels exceed or equal the levels in this table, mitigation shall only be required to limit noise to the ambient plus five dB.

Source: Fresno General Plan, Noise and Safety Element, Table 9-3 (Fresno 2014b).

Fresno Municipal Code Section 15-02506(D) reiterates the noise standards for stationary sources provided in the Fresno General Plan Noise and Safety Element and summarized in Table 9. Section 15-2506(D)(4) states that when ambient levels exceed the stationary source noise standards, mitigation shall be required to limit noise to the ambient noise level plus five (5) decibels.

The Noise Ordinance, codified in Chapter 10, Article 1 of the Fresno Municipal Code states that no person shall make, cause, suffer, or permit to be made or caused upon any premises or upon any public street or place within the city any sound or noise causing discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing or working in the area (Chapter 10, Article 1, Section 10-105). The ordinance applies to radios, musical instruments, animals, machinery or equipment, and construction equipment.

Section 10-109 of the Fresno Municipal Code provides exceptions to the City’s noise ordinance, stating that the provisions of the noise ordinance do not apply to construction, repair, or remodeling work accomplished pursuant to applicable permits issued by the City or other governmental agency, or to site preparation or grading, provided such work takes place from 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. on Monday through Saturday.

Finally, the Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan establishes a noise land use compatibility matrix for land uses affected by airport noise. According to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, outdoor recreation, including trails, are conditionally compatible within the 65- 69 CNEL range, and incompatible within the 70-74 CNEL and 75+ CNEL range (Fresno COG 2018).

Vibration
Fresno Municipal Code Section 15-2507 states that no vibration shall be produced that is transmitted through the ground and is discernable without the aid of instruments by a reasonable person at the lot lines of a site. Vibration from temporary construction, demolition, and vehicles that enter and leave the subject parcel are exempt from this standard. The Fresno Municipal Code does not establish quantitative standards for vibration. Therefore, vibration impacts are analyzed using the thresholds from Caltrans’ Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual and the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (Caltrans 2013b; FTA 2018). From these documents, the applicable thresholds for the vibration analysis are 0.5 peak particle velocity (PPV) inches per second at residential structures and the human “distinctly perceptible” threshold of 0.25 PPV inches per second.

City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
72 a. Would the project result in 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? Construction
Construction activity would result in temporary noise in the project area, exposing surrounding sensitive receptors to increased noise levels. Typical heavy construction equipment during project grading and site preparation would include backhoes, graders, and dozers. It is assumed that diesel engines would power the construction equipment. Construction equipment would not all operate at the same time or location, as equipment would travel along the proposed project’s alignment, limiting the duration of construction activities in proximity to any single receptor. In addition, construction equipment would not be in constant use during the eight-hour operating day.

Construction noise at nearby sensitive receptors was modeled using the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). The closest sensitive receptors to project construction would be single-family residences north of West Atchison Avenue and south of West Church Road (approximately 45 feet from the project alignment). Additional sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project alignment include a single-family residence north of West Lorena Avenue (approximately 150 feet from the project alignment) and residences southwest of West Atchison Avenue (approximately 310 feet from the project alignment). Table 10 summarizes construction noise associated with each phase of construction, based on the equipment list used to model air quality emissions in CalEEMod and provided in the project description.

Table 10 Construction Noise Levels
Phase Equipment1
Noise Level at Sensitive Receptors (dBA Leq)
Residences North of
West Atchison
Avenue2
Residence North of
West Lorena
Avenue3
Residences
Southwest of West
Atchison Avenue4
Demolition Concrete Saw, Excavator
(3), Dozer (2) 87.4 76.9 70.6
Site Preparation Backhoe, Excavator, Dozer 82.0 71.6 65.2 Grading Excavator, Dozer, Grader,
Compactor, Scraper,
Tractor, Trencher, Other
Construction Equipment

89.2 78.7 72.4
Paving Pavers (2), Concrete Saw,
Roller, Compactor, Other
Construction Equipment
(2)

88.8 78.3 72.0
1 Based on construction equipment list provided by CalEEMod output (Appendix A). 2 Residences located approximately 45 feet from project alignment. 3 Residence located approximately 150 feet from project alignment. 4 Residences located approximately 310 feet from project alignment.

See Appendix E for RCNM worksheets.

As shown in Table 10, the loudest construction phase would be grading, during which noise levels would be approximately 89 dBA Leq at the nearest residences. This exceeds the City of Fresno daytime and nighttime exterior noise standards. However, per Section 10-109, construction, repair, or remodeling work accomplished pursuant to applicable permits issued by the City or other Environmental Checklist
Noise
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 73
governmental agency, or site preparation or grading, provided such work takes place from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Monday through Saturday, is exempt from the City’s noise ordinance. As discussed in the project description, construction activities would be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Therefore, construction noise impacts would be less than significant.

Operational
The project involves construction of an approximately 0.8-mile bicycle and pedestrian trail, as well as associated landscaping and street and trail lighting. Operational noise associated with the project would be minimal and characterized by sources typical of recreational land uses, including conversations among cyclists and pedestrians or dogs barking. Such noise sources would be consistent with those already in existence in surrounding residential areas. The project would not result in trip generation and is intended to reduce vehicle trips on surrounding roadways by facilitating active transportation. Therefore, project operation would not increase roadway noise.

Project operation may require occasional maintenance activities, including repair of street or trail lights and landscaping maintenance. Such activities would be intermittent in nature and would not be anticipated to result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels. Consequently, operational noise impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Construction activities known to generate excessive ground-borne vibration, such as pile driving, would not be conducted by the project. At its closest point, project construction may occur within approximately 50 feet of the nearest residential structure (when accounting for setbacks). Table 11 summarizes potential vibration levels associated with equipment that may be used during project construction.

Table 11 Construction Equipment Vibration Levels
Equipment
PPV
at 25 ft. (in/sec)
PPV
at 50 ft. (in/sec)
Vibratory Roller 0.210 0.074
Hoe Ram 0.089 0.031
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.031
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.027
Jackhammer 0.035 0.012
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001
PPV = peak particle velocity
Source: FTA 2018
The greatest anticipated source of vibration during project construction activities would be from a roller, which would be used during paving activities. A vibratory roller would create approximately

0.210 inches per second PPV at a distance of 25 feet, or approximately 0.074 PPV at a distance of 50 feet (FTA 2018). This would be lower than what is considered a distinctly perceptible impact for humans of 0.25 inches per second PPV. Furthermore, temporary vibration impacts associated with construction activities are exempt from the City’s vibration standards, pursuant to Section 15-2507 City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
74 of the Fresno Municipal Code. Therefore, temporary impacts associated with construction-related groundborne vibration would be less than significant.

The project does not include any substantial vibration sources associated with operation. Therefore, operational vibration impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
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?
The project alignment is within the airport influence area of the Fresno Chandler Executive Airport, located approximately 0.5 mile to the north. According to the Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, outdoor recreation land uses, including trails, are conditionally compatible within the 65-69 CNEL range. No portion of the project alignment is located within the existing or future 60 or 65 CNEL noise contours. The project does not include construction of habitable structures that would expose residences or workers to excessive noise levels. Therefore, impacts related to exposure to excessive aviation-related noise would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Population and Housing
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 75
14 Population and Housing
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (e.g., through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)? □ □ □ ■
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned 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. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The project proposes the construction of a trail and other components (curb and gutters, landscaping, lighting, fencing, etc.) which would not induce population growth. There are no permanent structures that would be displaced as part of the project. There would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
76 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Public Services
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 77
15 Public Services
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, or the 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:
1 Fire protection? □ □ ■ □
2 Police protection? □ □ □ ■
3 Schools? □ □ □ ■
4 Parks? □ □ □ ■
5 Other public facilities? □ □ □ ■
a.1. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
The project would not introduce new uses at the project site that may demand increased fire protection services or facilities, or impede fire service. The structural and electrical components of the new trail and street lighting would be properly installed in compliance with all code and regulatory requirements, thereby reducing the potential for a fire at the project site. Construction along the proposed alignment would also be subject to County requirements relative to water availability and accessibility to firefighting equipment. Adherence to these requirements during construction would reduce the potential for fire hazards during construction.

Construction activity would slightly increase traffic at and adjacent to the proposed trail area during working hours because commuting construction workers, trucks, and other construction vehicles would be added to the normal traffic during the construction period. Slow moving constructionrelated traffic along the adjacent streets may reduce optimal traffic flows and could possibly delay emergency vehicles or contribute to a vehicle accident. However, construction would be temporary.

Operation and maintenance activities would be minimal and would not interfere with fire City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
78 protection/evacuation activities. The project would not result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.2. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
The construction activities associated with the project components would be temporary and would not affect police protection facilities or capabilities. Construction on-site would not normally require services from the Fresno Police Department, except in cases of trespassing, theft, and/or vandalism.

Such activities at a construction site are unusual, and do not place undue demands on police protection services. Once completed, site conditions would remain similar to existing conditions in so far that no habitable structures would be constructed requiring police protection/services.

Therefore, the proposed project would not require additional police protection or law enforcement services such that new or physically altered police facilities would need to be constructed. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
a.3. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, or the need for new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives? As discussed in Section 14, Population and Housing, the project does not include the construction of housing and would not generate population growth. Because implementation of the project would not introduce new students to the local school districts, the project would not require new or altered school facilities, and would not otherwise affect service ratios or performance objectives for schools. There would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
a.4. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks, or the need for new or physically altered parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives? The project is a recreational facility, which is intended to bring accessible open space/recreational activity to the City and reduce demands on other parks/recreational facilities in the area. In addition, as discussed in Section 14, Population and Housing, the project would not induce population thereby increasing demand for existing parks/recreational facilities. There would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
a.5. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of other new or physically altered public facilities, or the need for other new or physically altered public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental Environmental Checklist
Public Services
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 79
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
As discussed in Section 14, Population and Housing, the project does not include the construction of housing and would not generate population growth. Because implementation of the project would not introduce new residents to the area, the project would not require new or altered public facilities, such as libraries, and would not otherwise affect service ratios or performance objectives for public facilities. There would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
80 16 Recreation
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? □ □ □ ■
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? The project is a recreational facility, which is intended to bring accessible open space/recreational activity to the City and reduce demands on other recreational facilities in the area. In addition, as discussed in Section 14, Population and Housing, the project would not induce population thereby increasing demand for existing recreational facilities. The environmental impacts associated with construction of the trail alignment, are analyzed in this Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration in Sections 1-20. There would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Recreation
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 81
This page intentionally left blank.

City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
82 17 Transportation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance
or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities? □ ■ □ □
b. 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 use (e.g., farm equipment)? □ □ □ ■
d. Result in inadequate emergency access? □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?

OPERATION
During operation of the project, the project would not substantially add vehicle trips to the circulation network. Minimal numbers of vehicle trips may be generated from residents/visitors driving to the trail, but it is anticipated that the majority of people would be pedestrian and bicycle users from the immediate area. Worker vehicle trips and supply deliveries may occur during project operation when maintenance of the trail is needed or for landscaping purposes, however it is anticipated that these numbers would be minimal and not affect the local circulation network. All roadways and intersections are anticipated to return to pre-project levels of service post project completion. Due to the minimal number of vehicles added to local roadways during the operational period, the project would not conflict with congestion management programs, or result in a conflict with roadway or intersection capacity for vehicles, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operational impacts pertaining to bicycle, pedestrian, and transit users are anticipated to be positive and beneficial, as the project would improve access and safety for these users.

CONSTRUCTION
Traffic impacts during project construction would be primarily associated with worker vehicles and truck deliveries. The increased number of vehicles on adjacent roadways would be minimal during the temporary construction period, and would cease to occur once construction is over.

During the construction of the project, it is expected that emergency vehicles would continue to utilize the surrounding street system (i.e., particularly California Avenue) even though some Environmental Checklist
Transportation
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 83
portions of some roadways may be temporarily used for construction staging and/or material delivery. If required, drivers of emergency vehicles are also trained to utilize center turn lanes, or travel in opposing through lanes to pass through crowded intersections or streets. Nevertheless, impacts from potential temporary impediments to emergency and other vehicles as a result of project construction would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Measure TRAN-1 is required to ensure that access and safety is maintained in the local roadway network by preparing and implementing a construction staging and traffic management plan.

TRAN-1 Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan.

The Project applicant shall prepare a detailed Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan (CSTMP), which would include any applicable street/lane/sidewalk closure information, a detour plan, haul route(s), and a staging plan. The plan shall be based on the nature and timing of the project’s specific construction activities and shall consider other projects under construction in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The CSTMP also shall include features such as notification to adjacent project owners and occupants of upcoming construction activities, advance notification regarding any temporary transit stop relocations, and limitation of any potential roadway lane closure(s) to off-peak travel periods, to the extent feasible. Specifically, the CSTMP shall include, but not be limited to, the following measures:
 Advance notification of adjacent property owners and occupants of upcoming construction activities, including durations and daily hours of operation.  Temporary traffic control during all construction activities adjacent to public rights-of-way to improve traffic flow on public roadways (e.g., flag men).  Scheduling of construction activities to reduce the effect on traffic flow on surrounding arterial streets.
 Potential sequencing of construction activity for the project to reduce the amount of construction-related traffic on arterial streets.
 Containment of construction activity within the project site boundaries, per the Worksite Traffic Control Plan.
 Prohibition on construction-related vehicles/equipment parking on surrounding public streets.
 Coordination with public transit providers to address any potential conflicts with existing transit service.
 Safety precautions for pedestrians and bicyclists through such measures as alternate routing and protection barriers shall be implemented as appropriate.  Schedule delivery of construction materials and hauling/transport of oversize loads to nonpeak travel periods, to the extent possible. No hauling or transport shall be allowed during nighttime hours, Sundays, or federal holidays.
 Installation of appropriate traffic signs around the project site to ensure pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle safety, as may be necessary.
 Installation of truck crossing signs within 300 feet of the exit of the project site in each direction.

City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
84  Securing of loads by trimming and watering or covering to prevent the spilling or blowing of the earth material.
 Cleaning of trucks and loads at the export site to prevent blowing dirt and spilling of loose earth.
 Identification of a construction manager and provision of a telephone number for any inquiries or complaints from residents regarding construction activities. The telephone number shall be posted at the site readily visible to any interested party during site preparation, grading, and construction.
 Obtain a Caltrans transportation permit for use of oversized transport vehicles on Caltrans facilities, if needed.

The CSTMP shall be submitted to the City of Fresno Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of any construction related permits.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Section 15064.3 which was recently added to the State CEQA Guidelines, describes specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. Section 15064.3(b) establishes vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts, shifting away from the use of LOS analysis that evaluates a project’s impacts on traffic conditions at nearby roadways and intersections. Section 15064.3(c) states that, while a lead agency may elect to be governed by the provisions of Section 15064.3 immediately, it is not required to do so until July 1, 2020.

While the City of Fresno has not yet established VMT-based criteria for measuring transportation impacts, the proposed project is an open space project with active transportation facilities that would provide recreational options for pedestrians and bicyclists within an existing urban area. The project would likely result in a beneficial impact by reducing VMT, as users in the area would access and utilize the trail by foot or bicycle, instead of utilizing a vehicle. There would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? The project would install new curbs, gutters, sidewalk, and crosswalks in certain areas of the trail alignment. These features are proposed to reduce hazards associated with pedestrian and bicyclist accessibility, as the installation of the curbs, sidewalks, and crosswalks are proposed in locations where they currently do not exist. Since the project does not propose features that would increase hazards due to design or incompatible uses, there would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The project would not involve the construction of any new roadways or ingress/egress points that would have the potential to result in inadequate emergency access. As discussed in checklist item a, preparation of a construction management plan would be required in order to ensure that Environmental Checklist
Transportation
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 85
construction vehicles and staging equipment do not interfere with the roadway network, affecting emergency responders. Once operational, no project components would interfere with emergency access. This impact would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
86 18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in a Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or 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:
a. 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 □ □ □ □
b. 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
Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native
American tribe. □ □ □ □
As of July 1, 2015, California Assembly Bill 52 of 2014 (AB 52) was enacted and expands CEQA by defining a new resource category, “tribal cultural resources.” AB 52 establishes that “A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC Section 21084.2). It further states that the lead agency shall establish measures to avoid impacts that would alter the significant characteristics of a tribal cultural resource, when feasible (PRC Section 21084.3).

PRC Section 21074 (a)(1)(A) and (B) defines tribal cultural resources as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and is:

1. 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

2. 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 these criteria, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Environmental Checklist
Tribal Cultural Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 87
AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding those resources.

The consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified. Under AB 52, lead agencies are required to “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” Native American tribes to be included in the process are those that have requested notice of projects proposed within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is 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)?
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is 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? On October 14, 2019, Rincon Consultants, Inc. contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF). The NAHC responded on October 15, 2019 stating that the results of the SLF search were negative. Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared and mailed letters to local Native American groups listed in the SLF results on October 17th, 2019. No letters have been received to date. In addition, Rincon Consultants, Inc., on behalf of the City of Fresno, prepared and mailed AB 52 consultation outreach letters to local affiliated Native American groups on November 4th, 2019. No responses have been received to date. The consultation letters and negative SLF search results are attached as Appendix F. The City has complied with the tribal consultation requirements of AB 52. Although the City has not received any responses requesting further consultation to date, the City will respond to any correspondence received from tribal contacts in response to these letters consistent with the requirements of AB 52. Therefore, implementation of the project would not adversely affect tribal cultural resources, and this impact would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
88 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 89
19 Utilities and Service Systems
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. 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? □ □ □ ■
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
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project 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?
b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? c. Would the project 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?
City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
90 d. Would the project 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. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The following utility providers service the project area:
 Electrical Service – PG&E
 Natural Gas Service – PG&E
 Water/Sewer Service – City of Fresno
 Solid Waste – City of Fresno
The FMFCD is responsible for reviewing all land use proposals for drainage and flood control needs/impacts to ensure compliance with and implementation of the Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan and identification of stormwater quality best management practices.

The project would not generate wastewater nor exceed treatment requirements of the Central Valley RWQCB. The project would not generate a need for City of Fresno sewer service as no public restroom facilities are proposed. The impact to storm drainage facilities would be less than significant given that the project does not involve development of a use or facility with a demand for water capacity. The project would generate a minimal amount of solid waste. The project is within the build-out plans of the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan which had anticipated the construction of the trail. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 91
This page intentionally left blank.

City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
92 20 Wildfire
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 downslopes or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability,
or drainage changes? □ □ □ ■
a. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project, 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. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project 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. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslopes Environmental Checklist
Wildfire
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 93
or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
The project does not propose housing or other habitable structures. As discussed in checklist item g in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, based on the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps, the proposed trail alignment is not located in a Moderate, High, or Very High fire hazard severity zone (CALFire 2007). Further, as discussed in the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Final EIR, there are no wildland areas in the Specific Plan area (City of Fresno 2017). There would be no impact related to exposure of people or structures to wildland fire hazards.

NO IMPACT
City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
94 21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Does the project:
a. Have the potential to 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, substantially 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. Have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that
the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)? □ □ ■ □
c. Have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or
indirectly? □ ■ □ □
a. Does the project have the potential to 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, substantially 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? As discussed in Section 4, Biological Resources, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5 would ensure preconstruction surveys are taken to screen for potentially occurring species located in the project area, and that no biological resources would be adversely impacted by construction of the project. As discussed in Section 5, Cultural Resources, required adherence to existing federal, state, and local regulations would reduce potential impacts regarding the unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources and human remains. Based on the analysis in this Initial Study, the proposed project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the Environmental Checklist
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 95
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or 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.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Cumulative impacts are defined as two or more individual (and potentially less than significant) project effects that, when considered together or in concert with other projects, combine to result in a significant impact within an identified geographic area. In order for a project to contribute to cumulative impacts, it must result in some level of impact on a project-specific level. There are no related projects in the immediate vicinity of the proposed trail alignment. As discussed in Section 3, Air Quality, and Section 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, although the project would emit criteria pollutants during construction, the projects emissions are under SJVAPCD thresholds, and as such, the projects contribution to cumulative air quality and greenhouse gas impacts will not be cumulatively considerable. As discussed in Section 13, Noise, construction activities would occur only during specific construction hours consistent with the requirements of the Fresno Municipal Code and, therefore the project’s contribution to cumulative construction noise impacts is less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
A significant impact may occur if the project has the potential to result in significant impacts, as discussed in the preceding sections. In general, impacts to human beings are associated with such issues as air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise impacts. As detailed in Section 3, Air Quality, the project would not generate air pollutant emissions from construction that exceed localized thresholds and would not generate adverse odors. As discussed in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires sampling for potential contamination, and if present, preparation of a Soil Sampling Plan to properly locate and remove contaminated soils.

This would ensure no workers or future users of the trail are exposed to potentially hazardous soil conditions, if identified to be present. As discussed in Section 13, Noise, construction activity would result in temporary increases in noise. However, such noise would be temporary in nature, limited to the duration of construction activities, and would occur during specified construction hours consistent with those outlined in the Fresno Municipal Code. Impacts to human beings would be less than significant with project mitigation and regulatory compliance incorporated in other sections of this document.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
96 References
Bibliography
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2017. Accessed October 2019.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2019. iADAM Air Quality Data Statistics Top 4 Summary. https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php. Accessed November 2019. ______. 2018. California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory - 2018 Edition. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. Accessed October 2019. ______. 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. December 14, 2017. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. Accessed October 2019. ____. 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Last modified: May 4, 2016. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf. Accessed November 2019.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2007. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area. Accessible at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6671/fhszs_map10.pdf.

Accessed October 23, 2019.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013a. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. (CT-HWANP-RT-13-069.25.2) http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TeNS_Sept_2013B.pdf. Accessed October 2019. _____. 2013b Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. (CT-HWANP-RT-13- 069.25.3) September. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TCVGM_Sep13_FINAL.pdf Accessed October 2019.

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2009. Environmental Health and Equity Impacts from Climate Change and Mitigation Policies in California: A Review of the Literature. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-500-2009-038/CEC-500-2009-038-D.PDF.

Accessed October 2019.
____. 2016a. California Gasoline Data, Facts, and Statistics. http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/transportation_data/gasoline/. Accessed October 2019.
____. 2016b. Diesel Fuel Data, Facts, and Statistics.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/transportation_data/diesel.html. Accessed October 2019.
____. 2019. Total System Electric Generation.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html. Accessed October 2019.

Crocker, Malcolm J. 2007. Handbook of Noise and Vibration Control, John Wiley & Sons. Accessed October 2019.

References
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 97
Department of Conservation. 2018. Rural Land Mapping Edition – Fresno County Important Farmland 2016, Sheet 2 of 2. Available at:
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2016/fre16_e.pdf. Accessed October 16, 2019.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2019. Flood Map Service Center. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=900%20West%20Belgravia%20Avenue %2C%20Fresno%2C%20CA. Accessed October 1, 2019.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance. August 24. Accessed October 2019.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.

November. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/researchinnovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no0123_0.pdf. Accessed October 2019.

Fort Ord Rec Trail and Greenway (Fortag). 2019. Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR).

November. http://www.fortag.org/docs.htm. Accessed January 2020.

Fresno Council of Governments. 2018. Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. https://www.fresnocog.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/fresno-draft-ALUCP-12-04- 17c.pdf. Accessed October 23, 2019.
_____. 2017. 2018-2042 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). https://www.fresnocog.org/project/regional-transportation-plan-rtp/. Accessed November 2019.

Fresno, City of. 2016. Municipal Code Article 25 Section 15-2508. https://library.municode.com/ca/fresno/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=MUCOFR_CH1 5CIDECOINRE_PTIIIREAPSOALDI_ART25PEST_S15-2508LIGL. Accessed October 2019. _____. 2017. Southwest Fresno Specific Plan. https://www.fresno.gov/darm/general-plandevelopment-code/. Accessed October 2019. ______. 2017. Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 2017031012). https://www.fresno.gov/darm/general-plan-development-code/. Accessed October 2019. ______. 2017. Trail Design Guidelines. https://www.fresno.gov/publicworks/wpcontent/uploads/sites/17/2017/12/FresnoTrailDesignGuidelinesAdminDraft20171219.pdf.

Accessed October 2019.
______. 2014a. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan. General Plan and Development Code Update Master Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 2012111015).
https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/F-2-Greenhouse-GasReduction-Plan.pdf. Accessed November 2019. _____. 2014b. Fresno General Plan Noise and Safety Element. https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wpcontent/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/GP9NoiseandSafety.pdf. Accessed October 2019.

Pacific Gas and Electric. 2006. PG&E San Joaquin Valley Operation and Maintenance Habitat Conservation Plan. https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/plan_documents/thcp/thcp_838.pdf.

Accessed October 2019.

City of Fresno
Southwest Fresno Green Trail Project
98 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2018. 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards. http://valleyair.org/pmplans/documents/2018/pm-planadopted/2018-Plan-for-the-1997-2006-and-2012-PM2.5-Standards.pdf. Accessed November 2019.
_____. 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI_3-19-15.pdf. Accessed November 2019. _____. 2007. 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation. http://www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/docs/Maintenance%20Plan10-25-07.pdf.

Accessed November 2019.

United States Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2018. “California - Profile Overview.” Last modified: October 17, 2019. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA. Accessed October 2019.

List of Preparers
Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared this IS-MND under contract to the City of Fresno. Persons involved in data gathering analysis, project management, and quality control are listed below.

RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.

Rich Daulton, MURP, Principal
Eric VonBerg, Senior Project Manager
Susan Schilder-Thomas, Senior Environmental Planner
Nik Kilpelainen, Associate Environmental Planner
John Sisser, MESM, Associate Environmental Planner
Victoria Chung, Environmental Planner
Jenna Shaw, Planner
Andrew Beecher, Associate Planner
Appendix A
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Calculations

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population City Park 3.50 Acre 3.50 152,460.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
3 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 45

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Operational Year 2022
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
298.3 CH4 Intensity 0.013
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.003
(lb/MWhr)
Southwest Green Trail Project
Fresno County, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 27 Date: 11/1/2019 9:34 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Annual
Project Characteristics - Energy factor based on 2009 factor and 2030 RPS, per CPUC 2011 Land Use - 0.8 mi long (4224 ft) x 36 ft wide = 152,064 sq ft = 3.5 acre (includes landscaped area and trail features) Construction Phase - Per client, no building construction or architectural coating phases Off-road Equipment - Per client
Off-road Equipment - Per client
Off-road Equipment - Per client
Demolition - 0 per client
Grading - Balanced on site per client. Acres graded remains at default to account for multiple equipment passes.

Vehicle Trips - 0 trips as trail.

Area Mitigation -
Off-road Equipment - Remains at defaults
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Water exposed area applied based on client specifications and compliance with SJVAPCD Rule 8021 Trips and VMT -
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 8.00 22.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 18.00 23.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 21.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Crawler Tractors tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Excavators
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Plate Compactors tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Other Construction Equipment tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Scrapers
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Signal Boards
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Trenchers
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Concrete/Industrial Saws CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 27 Date: 11/1/2019 9:34 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Annual

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Plate Compactors tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Other Construction Equipment tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Signal Boards
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Surfacing Equipment tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 4.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00
tblProjectCharacteristics CH4IntensityFactor 0.029 0.013 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 298.3 tblProjectCharacteristics N2OIntensityFactor 0.006 0.003 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 22.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 16.74 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.89 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 27 Date: 11/1/2019 9:34 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Annual

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.1051 1.0392 0.8582 1.6800e0030.1592 0.0489 0.2081 0.0754 0.0453 0.1207 0.0000 147.2380 147.2380 0.0426 0.0000 148.3030 Maximum 0.1051 1.0392 0.8582 1.6800e0030.1592 0.0489 0.2081 0.0754 0.0453 0.1207 0.0000 147.2380 147.2380 0.0426 0.0000 148.3030 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.1051 1.0392 0.8582 1.6800e0030.0751 0.0489 0.1241 0.0349 0.0453 0.0802 0.0000 147.2379 147.2379 0.0426 0.0000 148.3028 Maximum 0.1051 1.0392 0.8582 1.6800e0030.0751 0.0489 0.1241 0.0349 0.0453 0.0802 0.0000 147.2379 147.2379 0.0426 0.0000 148.3028 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 52.81 0.00 40.39 53.77 0.00 33.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 27 Date: 11/1/2019 9:34 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Annual

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 1.4400e0030.0000 3.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.0000e0056.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 7.0000e005 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0609 0.0000 0.0609 3.6000e0030.0000 0.1509 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.9749 1.9749 9.0000e0052.0000e0051.9830 Total 1.4400e0030.0000 3.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0609 1.9750 2.0359 3.6900e0032.0000e0052.1339 Unmitigated Operational
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 3-1-2022 5-31-2022 0.9546 0.9546
2 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 0.1843 0.1843
Highest 0.9546 0.9546
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 27 Date: 11/1/2019 9:34 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Annual

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 1.4400e0030.0000 3.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.0000e0056.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 7.0000e005 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0609 0.0000 0.0609 3.6000e0030.0000 0.1509 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.9749 1.9749 9.0000e0052.0000e0051.9830 Total 1.4400e0030.0000 3.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0609 1.9750 2.0359 3.6900e0032.0000e0052.1339 Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 27 Date: 11/1/2019 9:34 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Annual
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 3/1/2022 3/28/2022 5 20
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 4/1/2022 4/29/2022 5 21 3 Grading Grading 5/1/2022 5/31/2022 5 22
4 Paving Paving 6/1/2022 7/1/2022 5 23
OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 44
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 27 Date: 11/1/2019 9:34 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Annual
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Plate Compactors 1 8.00 8 0.43
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Other Construction Equipment 1 8.00 172 0.42
Grading Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Crawler Tractors 1 8.00 212 0.43
Grading Signal Boards 1 8.00 6 0.82
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 0 6.00 9 0.56
Grading Trenchers 1 8.00 78 0.50
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Paving Rollers 1 8.00 80 0.38
Paving Plate Compactors 1 8.00 8 0.43
Paving Other Construction Equipment 1 8.00 172 0.42
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 8.00 97 0.37
Paving Signal Boards 1 8.00 6 0.82
Paving Surfacing Equipment 1 8.00 263 0.30
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 27 Date: 11/1/2019 9:34 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Annual

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0264 0.2572 0.2059 3.9000e0040.0124 0.0124 0.0116 0.0116 0.0000 33.9902 33.9902 9.5500e0030.0000 34.2289 Total 0.0264 0.2572 0.2059 3.9000e0040.0124 0.0124 0.0116 0.0116 0.0000 33.9902 33.9902 9.5500e0030.0000 34.2289 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 12 30.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 27 Date: 11/1/2019 9:34 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Annual

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.6000e0043.3000e0043.4500e0031.0000e0051.2000e0031.0000e0051.2100e0033.2000e0041.0000e0053.3000e0040.0000 0.9663 0.9663 2.0000e0050.0000 0.9669 Total 5.6000e0043.3000e0043.4500e0031.0000e0051.2000e0031.0000e0051.2100e0033.2000e0041.0000e0053.3000e0040.0000 0.9663 0.9663 2.0000e0050.0000 0.9669 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0264 0.2572 0.2059 3.9000e0040.0124 0.0124 0.0116 0.0116 0.0000 33.9902 33.9902 9.5500e0030.0000 34.2289 Total 0.0264 0.2572 0.2059 3.9000e0040.0124 0.0124 0.0116 0.0116 0.0000 33.9902 33.9902 9.5500e0030.0000 34.2289 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 27 Date: 11/1/2019 9:34 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Annual

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.6000e0043.3000e0043.4500e0031.0000e0051.2000e0031.0000e0051.2100e0033.2000e0041.0000e0053.3000e0040.0000 0.9663 0.9663 2.0000e0050.0000 0.9669 Total 5.6000e0043.3000e0043.4500e0031.0000e0051.2000e0031.0000e0051.2100e0033.2000e0041.0000e0053.3000e0040.0000 0.9663 0.9663 2.0000e0050.0000 0.9669 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0632 0.0000 0.0632 0.0348 0.0000 0.0348 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0126 0.1286 0.0953 1.8000e0046.2300e0036.2300e0035.7300e0035.7300e0030.0000 15.5102 15.5102 5.0200e0030.0000 15.6356 Total 0.0126 0.1286 0.0953 1.8000e0040.0632 6.2300e0030.0695 0.0348 5.7300e0030.0405 0.0000 15.5102 15.5102 5.0200e0030.0000 15.6356 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 27 Date: 11/1/2019 9:34 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Annual

3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.1000e0041.8000e0041.9300e0031.0000e0056.7000e0040.0000 6.8000e0041.8000e0040.0000 1.8000e0040.0000 0.5412 0.5412 1.0000e0050.0000 0.5415 Total 3.1000e0041.8000e0041.9300e0031.0000e0056.7000e0040.0000 6.8000e0041.8000e0040.0000 1.8000e0040.0000 0.5412 0.5412 1.0000e0050.0000 0.5415 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0285 0.0000 0.0285 0.0156 0.0000 0.0156 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0126 0.1286 0.0953 1.8000e0046.2300e0036.2300e0035.7300e0035.7300e0030.0000 15.5102 15.5102 5.0200e0030.0000 15.6356 Total 0.0126 0.1286 0.0953 1.8000e0040.0285 6.2300e0030.0347 0.0156 5.7300e0030.0214 0.0000 15.5102 15.5102 5.0200e0030.0000 15.6356 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 27 Date: 11/1/2019 9:34 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Annual

3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.1000e0041.8000e0041.9300e0031.0000e0056.7000e0040.0000 6.8000e0041.8000e0040.0000 1.8000e0040.0000 0.5412 0.5412 1.0000e0050.0000 0.5415 Total 3.1000e0041.8000e0041.9300e0031.0000e0056.7000e0040.0000 6.8000e0041.8000e0040.0000 1.8000e0040.0000 0.5412 0.5412 1.0000e0050.0000 0.5415 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0896 0.0000 0.0896 0.0389 0.0000 0.0389 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0451 0.4797 0.3420 7.0000e0040.0218 0.0218 0.0201 0.0201 0.0000 60.9763 60.9763 0.0195 0.0000 61.4648 Total 0.0451 0.4797 0.3420 7.0000e0040.0896 0.0218 0.1113 0.0389 0.0201 0.0590 0.0000 60.9763 60.9763 0.0195 0.0000 61.4648 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 27 Date: 11/1/2019 9:34 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Annual

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.2200e0037.2000e0047.5900e0032.0000e0052.6400e0032.0000e0052.6500e0037.0000e0041.0000e0057.2000e0040.0000 2.1259 2.1259 5.0000e0050.0000 2.1272 Total 1.2200e0037.2000e0047.5900e0032.0000e0052.6400e0032.0000e0052.6500e0037.0000e0041.0000e0057.2000e0040.0000 2.1259 2.1259 5.0000e0050.0000 2.1272 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0403 0.0000 0.0403 0.0175 0.0000 0.0175 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0451 0.4797 0.3420 7.0000e0040.0218 0.0218 0.0201 0.0201 0.0000 60.9763 60.9763 0.0195 0.0000 61.4647 Total 0.0451 0.4797 0.3420 7.0000e0040.0403 0.0218 0.0621 0.0175 0.0201 0.0376 0.0000 60.9763 60.9763 0.0195 0.0000 61.4647 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 27 Date: 11/1/2019 9:34 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Annual

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.2200e0037.2000e0047.5900e0032.0000e0052.6400e0032.0000e0052.6500e0037.0000e0041.0000e0057.2000e0040.0000 2.1259 2.1259 5.0000e0050.0000 2.1272 Total 1.2200e0037.2000e0047.5900e0032.0000e0052.6400e0032.0000e0052.6500e0037.0000e0041.0000e0057.2000e0040.0000 2.1259 2.1259 5.0000e0050.0000 2.1272 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Paving - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0180 0.1720 0.1967 3.7000e0048.4700e0038.4700e0037.9600e0037.9600e0030.0000 31.6461 31.6461 8.3800e0030.0000 31.8557 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0180 0.1720 0.1967 3.7000e0048.4700e0038.4700e0037.9600e0037.9600e0030.0000 31.6461 31.6461 8.3800e0030.0000 31.8557 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 27 Date: 11/1/2019 9:34 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Annual

3.5 Paving - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 8.5000e0045.0000e0045.2900e0032.0000e0051.8400e0031.0000e0051.8500e0034.9000e0041.0000e0055.0000e0040.0000 1.4817 1.4817 3.0000e0050.0000 1.4826 Total 8.5000e0045.0000e0045.2900e0032.0000e0051.8400e0031.0000e0051.8500e0034.9000e0041.0000e0055.0000e0040.0000 1.4817 1.4817 3.0000e0050.0000 1.4826 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0180 0.1720 0.1967 3.7000e0048.4700e0038.4700e0037.9600e0037.9600e0030.0000 31.6461 31.6461 8.3800e0030.0000 31.8556 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0180 0.1720 0.1967 3.7000e0048.4700e0038.4700e0037.9600e0037.9600e0030.0000 31.6461 31.6461 8.3800e0030.0000 31.8556 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 27 Date: 11/1/2019 9:34 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Annual

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

3.5 Paving - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 8.5000e0045.0000e0045.2900e0032.0000e0051.8400e0031.0000e0051.8500e0034.9000e0041.0000e0055.0000e0040.0000 1.4817 1.4817 3.0000e0050.0000 1.4826 Total 8.5000e0045.0000e0045.2900e0032.0000e0051.8400e0031.0000e0051.8500e0034.9000e0041.0000e0055.0000e0040.0000 1.4817 1.4817 3.0000e0050.0000 1.4826 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 27 Date: 11/1/2019 9:34 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by City Park 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 48.00 19.00 66 28 6

5.0 Energy Detail

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH City Park 0.492212 0.031147 0.169820 0.116157 0.015815 0.004502 0.033398 0.126328 0.002363 0.001519 0.005062 0.001083 0.000594 Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 27 Date: 11/1/2019 9:34 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 27 Date: 11/1/2019 9:34 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Annual

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 27 Date: 11/1/2019 9:34 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Annual
No Hearths Installed

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 27 Date: 11/1/2019 9:34 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 1.4400e0030.0000 3.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.0000e0056.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 7.0000e005 Unmitigated 1.4400e0030.0000 3.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.0000e0056.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 7.0000e005

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

1.4300e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.0000e0056.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 7.0000e005 Total 1.4300e0030.0000 3.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.0000e0056.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 7.0000e005 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 27 Date: 11/1/2019 9:34 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Annual

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

1.4300e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.0000e0056.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 7.0000e005 Total 1.4300e0030.0000 3.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.0000e0056.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 7.0000e005 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 27 Date: 11/1/2019 9:34 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Annual
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 1.9749 9.0000e0052.0000e0051.9830
Unmitigated 1.9749 9.0000e0052.0000e0051.9830

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
City Park 0 /

4.17018

1.9749 9.0000e0052.0000e0051.9830
Total 1.9749 9.0000e0052.0000e0051.9830
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 27 Date: 11/1/2019 9:34 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Annual

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
City Park 0 /

4.17018

1.9749 9.0000e0052.0000e0051.9830
Total 1.9749 9.0000e0052.0000e0051.9830
Mitigated

8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0609 3.6000e0030.0000 0.1509
Unmitigated 0.0609 3.6000e0030.0000 0.1509
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 27 Date: 11/1/2019 9:34 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Annual

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
City Park 0.3 0.0609 3.6000e0030.0000 0.1509
Total 0.0609 3.6000e0030.0000 0.1509
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
City Park 0.3 0.0609 3.6000e0030.0000 0.1509
Total 0.0609 3.6000e0030.0000 0.1509
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 27 Date: 11/1/2019 9:34 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Annual

11.0 Vegetation

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 27 Date: 11/1/2019 9:34 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Annual

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population City Park 3.50 Acre 3.50 152,460.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
3 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 45

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Operational Year 2022
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
298.3 CH4 Intensity 0.013
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.003
(lb/MWhr)
Southwest Green Trail Project
Fresno County, Summer
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:37 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Summer
Project Characteristics - Energy factor based on 2009 factor and 2030 RPS, per CPUC 2011 Land Use - 0.8 mi long (4224 ft) x 36 ft wide = 152,064 sq ft = 3.5 acre (includes landscaped area and trail features) Construction Phase - Per client, no building construction or architectural coating phases Off-road Equipment - Per client
Off-road Equipment - Per client
Off-road Equipment - Per client
Demolition - 0 per client
Grading - Balanced on site per client. Acres graded remains at default to account for multiple equipment passes.

Vehicle Trips - 0 trips as trail.

Area Mitigation -
Off-road Equipment - Remains at defaults
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Water exposed area applied based on client specifications and compliance with SJVAPCD Rule 8021 Trips and VMT -
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 8.00 22.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 18.00 23.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 21.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Crawler Tractors tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Excavators
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Plate Compactors tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Other Construction Equipment tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Scrapers
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Signal Boards
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Trenchers
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Concrete/Industrial Saws CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:37 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Summer

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Plate Compactors tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Other Construction Equipment tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Signal Boards
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Surfacing Equipment tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 4.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00
tblProjectCharacteristics CH4IntensityFactor 0.029 0.013 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 298.3 tblProjectCharacteristics N2OIntensityFactor 0.006 0.003 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 22.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 16.74 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.89 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:37 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Summer

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2022 4.2233 43.6728 31.8954 0.0658 8.3895 1.9804 10.3699 3.6046 1.8239 5.4285 0.0000 6,344.074 0 6,344.074
0 1.9632 0.0000 6,393.154
9 Maximum 4.2233 43.6728 31.8954 0.0658 8.3895 1.9804 10.3699 3.6046 1.8239 5.4285 0.0000 6,344.074 0 6,344.074
0 1.9632 0.0000 6,393.154
9 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2022 4.2233 43.6728 31.8954 0.0658 3.9108 1.9804 5.8912 1.6580 1.8239 3.4819 0.0000 6,344.074 0 6,344.074
0 1.9632 0.0000 6,393.154
9 Maximum 4.2233 43.6728 31.8954 0.0658 3.9108 1.9804 5.8912 1.6580 1.8239 3.4819 0.0000 6,344.074 0 6,344.074
0 1.9632 0.0000 6,393.154
9 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.38 0.00 43.19 54.00 0.00 35.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:37 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Summer

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 7.8900e0030.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 8.2000e004 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 7.8900e0030.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 0.0000 8.2000e004 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 7.8900e0030.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 8.2000e004 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 7.8900e0030.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 0.0000 8.2000e004 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:37 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Summer

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 3/1/2022 3/28/2022 5 20
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 4/1/2022 4/29/2022 5 21 3 Grading Grading 5/1/2022 5/31/2022 5 22
4 Paving Paving 6/1/2022 7/1/2022 5 23
OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 44
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:37 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Summer
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Plate Compactors 1 8.00 8 0.43
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Other Construction Equipment 1 8.00 172 0.42
Grading Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Crawler Tractors 1 8.00 212 0.43
Grading Signal Boards 1 8.00 6 0.82
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 0 6.00 9 0.56
Grading Trenchers 1 8.00 78 0.50
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Paving Rollers 1 8.00 80 0.38
Paving Plate Compactors 1 8.00 8 0.43
Paving Other Construction Equipment 1 8.00 172 0.42
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 8.00 97 0.37
Paving Signal Boards 1 8.00 6 0.82
Paving Surfacing Equipment 1 8.00 263 0.30
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:37 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Summer

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.6392 25.7194 20.5941 0.0388 1.2427 1.2427 1.1553 1.1553 3,746.781 2 3,746.781
2 1.0524 3,773.092
0 Total 2.6392 25.7194 20.5941 0.0388 1.2427 1.2427 1.1553 1.1553 3,746.781 2 3,746.781
2 1.0524 3,773.092
0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 12 30.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:37 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Summer

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0631 0.0304 0.4007 1.1700e0030.1232 7.2000e0040.1240 0.0327 6.7000e0040.0334 116.8138 116.8138 2.7000e003116.8813 Total 0.0631 0.0304 0.4007 1.1700e0030.1232 7.2000e0040.1240 0.0327 6.7000e0040.0334 116.8138 116.8138 2.7000e003116.8813 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.6392 25.7194 20.5941 0.0388 1.2427 1.2427 1.1553 1.1553 0.0000 3,746.781 2 3,746.781
2 1.0524 3,773.092
0 Total 2.6392 25.7194 20.5941 0.0388 1.2427 1.2427 1.1553 1.1553 0.0000 3,746.781 2 3,746.781
2 1.0524 3,773.092
0 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:37 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Summer

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0631 0.0304 0.4007 1.1700e0030.1232 7.2000e0040.1240 0.0327 6.7000e0040.0334 116.8138 116.8138 2.7000e003116.8813 Total 0.0631 0.0304 0.4007 1.1700e0030.1232 7.2000e0040.1240 0.0327 6.7000e0040.0334 116.8138 116.8138 2.7000e003116.8813 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 6.0221 0.0000 6.0221 3.3102 0.0000 3.3102 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.2042 12.2463 9.0751 0.0168 0.5934 0.5934 0.5459 0.5459 1,628.289 6 1,628.289
6 0.5266 1,641.455
1 Total 1.2042 12.2463 9.0751 0.0168 6.0221 0.5934 6.6155 3.3102 0.5459 3.8562 1,628.289 6 1,628.289
6 0.5266 1,641.455
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:37 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Summer

3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0336 0.0162 0.2137 6.3000e0040.0657 3.9000e0040.0661 0.0174 3.6000e0040.0178 62.3007 62.3007 1.4400e00362.3367 Total 0.0336 0.0162 0.2137 6.3000e0040.0657 3.9000e0040.0661 0.0174 3.6000e0040.0178 62.3007 62.3007 1.4400e00362.3367 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 2.7099 0.0000 2.7099 1.4896 0.0000 1.4896 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.2042 12.2463 9.0751 0.0168 0.5934 0.5934 0.5459 0.5459 0.0000 1,628.289 6 1,628.289
6 0.5266 1,641.455
1 Total 1.2042 12.2463 9.0751 0.0168 2.7099 0.5934 3.3033 1.4896 0.5459 2.0355 0.0000 1,628.289 6 1,628.289
6 0.5266 1,641.455
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:37 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Summer

3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0336 0.0162 0.2137 6.3000e0040.0657 3.9000e0040.0661 0.0174 3.6000e0040.0178 62.3007 62.3007 1.4400e00362.3367 Total 0.0336 0.0162 0.2137 6.3000e0040.0657 3.9000e0040.0661 0.0174 3.6000e0040.0178 62.3007 62.3007 1.4400e00362.3367 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.1431 0.0000 8.1431 3.5393 0.0000 3.5393 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.0971 43.6120 31.0941 0.0634 1.9790 1.9790 1.8225 1.8225 6,110.446 4 6,110.446
4 1.9578 6,159.392
4 Total 4.0971 43.6120 31.0941 0.0634 8.1431 1.9790 10.1220 3.5393 1.8225 5.3618 6,110.446 4 6,110.446
4 1.9578 6,159.392
4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:37 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Summer

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1262 0.0608 0.8014 2.3400e0030.2464 1.4500e0030.2479 0.0654 1.3300e0030.0667 233.6276 233.6276 5.3900e003233.7625 Total 0.1262 0.0608 0.8014 2.3400e0030.2464 1.4500e0030.2479 0.0654 1.3300e0030.0667 233.6276 233.6276 5.3900e003233.7625 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.6644 0.0000 3.6644 1.5927 0.0000 1.5927 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.0971 43.6120 31.0941 0.0634 1.9790 1.9790 1.8225 1.8225 0.0000 6,110.446 4 6,110.446
4 1.9578 6,159.392
4 Total 4.0971 43.6120 31.0941 0.0634 3.6644 1.9790 5.6433 1.5927 1.8225 3.4152 0.0000 6,110.446 4 6,110.446
4 1.9578 6,159.392
4 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:37 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Summer

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1262 0.0608 0.8014 2.3400e0030.2464 1.4500e0030.2479 0.0654 1.3300e0030.0667 233.6276 233.6276 5.3900e003233.7625 Total 0.1262 0.0608 0.8014 2.3400e0030.2464 1.4500e0030.2479 0.0654 1.3300e0030.0667 233.6276 233.6276 5.3900e003233.7625 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Paving - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5666 14.9565 17.1015 0.0318 0.7369 0.7369 0.6918 0.6918 3,033.381 6 3,033.381
6 0.8033 3,053.464
2 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.5666 14.9565 17.1015 0.0318 0.7369 0.7369 0.6918 0.6918 3,033.381 6 3,033.381
6 0.8033 3,053.464
2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:37 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Summer

3.5 Paving - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0841 0.0406 0.5342 1.5600e0030.1643 9.7000e0040.1653 0.0436 8.9000e0040.0445 155.7518 155.7518 3.6000e003155.8417 Total 0.0841 0.0406 0.5342 1.5600e0030.1643 9.7000e0040.1653 0.0436 8.9000e0040.0445 155.7518 155.7518 3.6000e003155.8417 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5666 14.9565 17.1015 0.0318 0.7369 0.7369 0.6918 0.6918 0.0000 3,033.381 6 3,033.381
6 0.8033 3,053.464
2 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.5666 14.9565 17.1015 0.0318 0.7369 0.7369 0.6918 0.6918 0.0000 3,033.381 6 3,033.381
6 0.8033 3,053.464
2 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:37 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Summer

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

3.5 Paving - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0841 0.0406 0.5342 1.5600e0030.1643 9.7000e0040.1653 0.0436 8.9000e0040.0445 155.7518 155.7518 3.6000e003155.8417 Total 0.0841 0.0406 0.5342 1.5600e0030.1643 9.7000e0040.1653 0.0436 8.9000e0040.0445 155.7518 155.7518 3.6000e003155.8417 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:37 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by City Park 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 48.00 19.00 66 28 6

5.0 Energy Detail

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH City Park 0.492212 0.031147 0.169820 0.116157 0.015815 0.004502 0.033398 0.126328 0.002363 0.001519 0.005062 0.001083 0.000594 Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:37 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:37 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Summer
No Hearths Installed

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:37 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 7.8900e0030.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 8.2000e004 Unmitigated 7.8900e0030.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 8.2000e004

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

7.8500e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 3.0000e0050.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 8.2000e004 Total 7.8800e0030.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 8.2000e004 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:37 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Summer

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

8.0 Waste Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

7.8500e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 3.0000e0050.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 8.2000e004 Total 7.8800e0030.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 8.2000e004 Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:37 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Summer

11.0 Vegetation
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:37 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Summer

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population City Park 3.50 Acre 3.50 152,460.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
3 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 45

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Operational Year 2022
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
298.3 CH4 Intensity 0.013
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.003
(lb/MWhr)
Southwest Green Trail Project
Fresno County, Winter
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:38 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Winter
Project Characteristics - Energy factor based on 2009 factor and 2030 RPS, per CPUC 2011 Land Use - 0.8 mi long (4224 ft) x 36 ft wide = 152,064 sq ft = 3.5 acre (includes landscaped area and trail features) Construction Phase - Per client, no building construction or architectural coating phases Off-road Equipment - Per client
Off-road Equipment - Per client
Off-road Equipment - Per client
Demolition - 0 per client
Grading - Balanced on site per client. Acres graded remains at default to account for multiple equipment passes.

Vehicle Trips - 0 trips as trail.

Area Mitigation -
Off-road Equipment - Remains at defaults
Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Water exposed area applied based on client specifications and compliance with SJVAPCD Rule 8021 Trips and VMT -
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 8.00 22.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 18.00 23.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 21.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Crawler Tractors tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Excavators
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Plate Compactors tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Other Construction Equipment tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Scrapers
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Signal Boards
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Trenchers
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Concrete/Industrial Saws CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:38 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Winter

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Plate Compactors tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Other Construction Equipment tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Signal Boards
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Surfacing Equipment tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 4.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00
tblProjectCharacteristics CH4IntensityFactor 0.029 0.013 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 298.3 tblProjectCharacteristics N2OIntensityFactor 0.006 0.003 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 22.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 16.74 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.89 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:38 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Winter

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2022 4.2145 43.6834 31.7709 0.0655 8.3895 1.9804 10.3699 3.6046 1.8239 5.4285 0.0000 6,315.218 5 6,315.218
5 1.9626 0.0000 6,364.282
9 Maximum 4.2145 43.6834 31.7709 0.0655 8.3895 1.9804 10.3699 3.6046 1.8239 5.4285 0.0000 6,315.218 5 6,315.218
5 1.9626 0.0000 6,364.282
9 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2022 4.2145 43.6834 31.7709 0.0655 3.9108 1.9804 5.8912 1.6580 1.8239 3.4819 0.0000 6,315.218 5 6,315.218
5 1.9626 0.0000 6,364.282
9 Maximum 4.2145 43.6834 31.7709 0.0655 3.9108 1.9804 5.8912 1.6580 1.8239 3.4819 0.0000 6,315.218 5 6,315.218
5 1.9626 0.0000 6,364.282
9 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.38 0.00 43.19 54.00 0.00 35.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:38 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Winter

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 7.8900e0030.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 8.2000e004 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 7.8900e0030.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 0.0000 8.2000e004 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 7.8900e0030.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 8.2000e004 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 7.8900e0030.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 0.0000 8.2000e004 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:38 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Winter

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 3/1/2022 3/28/2022 5 20
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 4/1/2022 4/29/2022 5 21 3 Grading Grading 5/1/2022 5/31/2022 5 22
4 Paving Paving 6/1/2022 7/1/2022 5 23
OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 44
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:38 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Winter
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Plate Compactors 1 8.00 8 0.43
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Other Construction Equipment 1 8.00 172 0.42
Grading Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Crawler Tractors 1 8.00 212 0.43
Grading Signal Boards 1 8.00 6 0.82
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 0 6.00 9 0.56
Grading Trenchers 1 8.00 78 0.50
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Paving Rollers 1 8.00 80 0.38
Paving Plate Compactors 1 8.00 8 0.43
Paving Other Construction Equipment 1 8.00 172 0.42
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 8.00 97 0.37
Paving Signal Boards 1 8.00 6 0.82
Paving Surfacing Equipment 1 8.00 263 0.30
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:38 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Winter

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.6392 25.7194 20.5941 0.0388 1.2427 1.2427 1.1553 1.1553 3,746.781 2 3,746.781
2 1.0524 3,773.092
0 Total 2.6392 25.7194 20.5941 0.0388 1.2427 1.2427 1.1553 1.1553 3,746.781 2 3,746.781
2 1.0524 3,773.092
0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 12 30.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:38 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Winter

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0587 0.0357 0.3384 1.0300e0030.1232 7.2000e0040.1240 0.0327 6.7000e0040.0334 102.3860 102.3860 2.3700e003102.4452 Total 0.0587 0.0357 0.3384 1.0300e0030.1232 7.2000e0040.1240 0.0327 6.7000e0040.0334 102.3860 102.3860 2.3700e003102.4452 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.6392 25.7194 20.5941 0.0388 1.2427 1.2427 1.1553 1.1553 0.0000 3,746.781 2 3,746.781
2 1.0524 3,773.092
0 Total 2.6392 25.7194 20.5941 0.0388 1.2427 1.2427 1.1553 1.1553 0.0000 3,746.781 2 3,746.781
2 1.0524 3,773.092
0 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:38 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Winter

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0587 0.0357 0.3384 1.0300e0030.1232 7.2000e0040.1240 0.0327 6.7000e0040.0334 102.3860 102.3860 2.3700e003102.4452 Total 0.0587 0.0357 0.3384 1.0300e0030.1232 7.2000e0040.1240 0.0327 6.7000e0040.0334 102.3860 102.3860 2.3700e003102.4452 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 6.0221 0.0000 6.0221 3.3102 0.0000 3.3102 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.2042 12.2463 9.0751 0.0168 0.5934 0.5934 0.5459 0.5459 1,628.289 6 1,628.289
6 0.5266 1,641.455
1 Total 1.2042 12.2463 9.0751 0.0168 6.0221 0.5934 6.6155 3.3102 0.5459 3.8562 1,628.289 6 1,628.289
6 0.5266 1,641.455
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:38 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Winter

3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0313 0.0191 0.1805 5.5000e0040.0657 3.9000e0040.0661 0.0174 3.6000e0040.0178 54.6059 54.6059 1.2600e00354.6375 Total 0.0313 0.0191 0.1805 5.5000e0040.0657 3.9000e0040.0661 0.0174 3.6000e0040.0178 54.6059 54.6059 1.2600e00354.6375 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 2.7099 0.0000 2.7099 1.4896 0.0000 1.4896 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.2042 12.2463 9.0751 0.0168 0.5934 0.5934 0.5459 0.5459 0.0000 1,628.289 6 1,628.289
6 0.5266 1,641.455
1 Total 1.2042 12.2463 9.0751 0.0168 2.7099 0.5934 3.3033 1.4896 0.5459 2.0355 0.0000 1,628.289 6 1,628.289
6 0.5266 1,641.455
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:38 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Winter

3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0313 0.0191 0.1805 5.5000e0040.0657 3.9000e0040.0661 0.0174 3.6000e0040.0178 54.6059 54.6059 1.2600e00354.6375 Total 0.0313 0.0191 0.1805 5.5000e0040.0657 3.9000e0040.0661 0.0174 3.6000e0040.0178 54.6059 54.6059 1.2600e00354.6375 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.1431 0.0000 8.1431 3.5393 0.0000 3.5393 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.0971 43.6120 31.0941 0.0634 1.9790 1.9790 1.8225 1.8225 6,110.446 4 6,110.446
4 1.9578 6,159.392
4 Total 4.0971 43.6120 31.0941 0.0634 8.1431 1.9790 10.1220 3.5393 1.8225 5.3618 6,110.446 4 6,110.446
4 1.9578 6,159.392
4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:38 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Winter

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1174 0.0714 0.6769 2.0500e0030.2464 1.4500e0030.2479 0.0654 1.3300e0030.0667 204.7721 204.7721 4.7400e003204.8905 Total 0.1174 0.0714 0.6769 2.0500e0030.2464 1.4500e0030.2479 0.0654 1.3300e0030.0667 204.7721 204.7721 4.7400e003204.8905 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.6644 0.0000 3.6644 1.5927 0.0000 1.5927 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.0971 43.6120 31.0941 0.0634 1.9790 1.9790 1.8225 1.8225 0.0000 6,110.446 4 6,110.446
4 1.9578 6,159.392
4 Total 4.0971 43.6120 31.0941 0.0634 3.6644 1.9790 5.6433 1.5927 1.8225 3.4152 0.0000 6,110.446 4 6,110.446
4 1.9578 6,159.392
4 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:38 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Winter

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1174 0.0714 0.6769 2.0500e0030.2464 1.4500e0030.2479 0.0654 1.3300e0030.0667 204.7721 204.7721 4.7400e003204.8905 Total 0.1174 0.0714 0.6769 2.0500e0030.2464 1.4500e0030.2479 0.0654 1.3300e0030.0667 204.7721 204.7721 4.7400e003204.8905 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Paving - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5666 14.9565 17.1015 0.0318 0.7369 0.7369 0.6918 0.6918 3,033.381 6 3,033.381
6 0.8033 3,053.464
2 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.5666 14.9565 17.1015 0.0318 0.7369 0.7369 0.6918 0.6918 3,033.381 6 3,033.381
6 0.8033 3,053.464
2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:38 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Winter

3.5 Paving - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0783 0.0476 0.4512 1.3700e0030.1643 9.7000e0040.1653 0.0436 8.9000e0040.0445 136.5147 136.5147 3.1600e003136.5936 Total 0.0783 0.0476 0.4512 1.3700e0030.1643 9.7000e0040.1653 0.0436 8.9000e0040.0445 136.5147 136.5147 3.1600e003136.5936 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5666 14.9565 17.1015 0.0318 0.7369 0.7369 0.6918 0.6918 0.0000 3,033.381 6 3,033.381
6 0.8033 3,053.464
2 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.5666 14.9565 17.1015 0.0318 0.7369 0.7369 0.6918 0.6918 0.0000 3,033.381 6 3,033.381
6 0.8033 3,053.464
2 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:38 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Winter

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

3.5 Paving - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0783 0.0476 0.4512 1.3700e0030.1643 9.7000e0040.1653 0.0436 8.9000e0040.0445 136.5147 136.5147 3.1600e003136.5936 Total 0.0783 0.0476 0.4512 1.3700e0030.1643 9.7000e0040.1653 0.0436 8.9000e0040.0445 136.5147 136.5147 3.1600e003136.5936 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:38 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by City Park 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 48.00 19.00 66 28 6

5.0 Energy Detail

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH City Park 0.492212 0.031147 0.169820 0.116157 0.015815 0.004502 0.033398 0.126328 0.002363 0.001519 0.005062 0.001083 0.000594 Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:38 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:38 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Winter
No Hearths Installed

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:38 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 7.8900e0030.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 8.2000e004 Unmitigated 7.8900e0030.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 8.2000e004

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

7.8500e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 3.0000e0050.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 8.2000e004 Total 7.8800e0030.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 8.2000e004 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:38 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Winter

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

8.0 Waste Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

7.8500e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 3.0000e0050.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 8.2000e004 Total 7.8800e0030.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 8.2000e004 Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:38 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Winter

11.0 Vegetation
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 22 Date: 11/1/2019 9:38 AM Southwest Green Trail Project - Fresno County, Winter
# of Streetlights Kilowatts per Streetlight Average # of Hours per Day Days per Year Yearly Hours Total 22 0.034 12.5 365 4562.5 3,412.8 kWh/year

3.41 MWh/year
Emissions Factors
(lbs/MWh) Emissions (lbs) Emissions (MT) MT CO2e
CO2 422.02 1440.248755 0.653285846 0.653285846
CH4 0.019 0.06484225 2.94119E-05 0.0007
N2O 0.004 0.013651 6.19199E-06 0.0018
Total 0.66 MT CO2e
- Greenhouse gas conversions performed using factors provided by the U.S. EPA's Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator. Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator Streetlighting Energy Calculations
Because CalEEMod does not provide an appropriate proxy for streetlights, GHG emissions from energy usage by streetlights were calculated separately using CalEEMod energy emissions factors for PG&E. Conversions of CH4 and NO2 to CO2e were made using conversion factors provided by the U.S. EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator.
- Watts per streetlight based on client-provided equipment specifications. - Average hours of operation per day is based on an average of the number of nighttime hours on the winter solstice (conservatively assumed 15 hours) and the number of nighttime hours on the summer solstice (conservatively assumed 10 hours). - Emissions factors based on CalEEMod intensity factors for Pacific Gas & Electric Company, adjusted to account for anticipated 2022 RPS procurement of 43.38%, based on 2017 PG&E procurement of 33% and mandated 2030 procurement of 60%.

Appendix B
Biological Resources Documentation

Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur in Project Area Habitat Suitability/
Observations
Atriplex minuscula
lesser saltscale
None/None
G2 / S2
1B.1
Chenopod scrub, playas, valley and foothill grassland.

In alkali sink and grassland in sandy, alkaline soils. 0- 225 m. annual herb. Blooms May-Oct
None
Habitat is disturbed ruderal and non-native annual
grassland; unsuitable for this species.

Castilleja campestris var.
succulenta
succulent owl's-clover
Threatened/Endangered
G4?T2T3 / S2S3
1B.2
Vernal pools. Moist places, often in acidic soils. 20-
705 m. annual herb (hemiparasitic). Blooms (Mar)AprMayNone Habitat is disturbed ruderal and non-native annual
grassland; unsuitable for this species. No vernal pools are present.

Caulanthus californicus
California jewelflower
Endangered/Endangered
G1 / S1
1B.1
Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grassland, pinyon
and juniper woodland. Sandy soils. 65-1860 m. annual
herb. Blooms Feb-May
None
Habitat is disturbed ruderal and non-native annual
grassland; unsuitable for this species.

Eriastrum hooveri
Hoover's eriastrum
Delisted/None
G3 / S3

4.2 Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grassland, pinyon and juniper woodland. On sparsely vegetated alkaline
alluvial fans; also in the Temblor Range on sandy soils. 50-915 m. annual herb. Blooms Mar-Jul
None
Habitat is disturbed ruderal and non-native annual
grassland; unsuitable for this species.

Eriogonum nortonii
Pinnacles buckwheat
None/None
G2 / S2
1B.3
Chaparral, valley and foothill grassland. Sandy soils;
often on recent burns; western Santa Lucias. 90-975
m. annual herb. Blooms (Apr)May-Aug(Sep)
None
Habitat is disturbed ruderal and non-native annual
grassland; unsuitable for this species.

Imperata brevifolia
California satintail
None/None
G4 / S3
2B.1
Coastal scrub, chaparral, riparian scrub, Mojavean
desert scrub, meadows and seeps (alkali), riparian
scrub. Mesic sites, alkali seeps, riparian areas. 3-1495 m. perennial rhizomatous herb. Blooms Sep-May
None
Habitat is disturbed ruderal and non-native annual
grassland; unsuitable for this species.

Leptosiphon serrulatus
Madera leptosiphon
None/None
G3 / S3
1B.2
Cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous
forest. Dry slopes; often on decomposed granite in
woodland. 300-1300 m. annual herb. Blooms AprMay
None
Habitat is disturbed ruderal and non-native annual
grassland; unsuitable for this species.

Mielichhoferia shevockii
Shevock's copper moss
None/None
G2 / S2
1B.2
Cismontane woodland. Moss on metamorphic rocks
containing heavy metals; mesic sites. On rocks along
roads, in same habitat as Mielichhoferia elongata. 750- 1400 m. moss.

None
Habitat is disturbed ruderal and non-native annual
grassland; unsuitable for this species.

Orcuttia inaequalis
San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass
Threatened/Endangered
G1 / S1
1B.1
Vernal pools. 10-755 m. annual herb. Blooms Apr-Sep None Habitat is disturbed ruderal and non-native annual
grassland; unsuitable for this species. No vernal pools are present on site.

Orcuttia pilosa
hairy Orcutt grass
Endangered/Endangered
G1 / S1
1B.1
Vernal pools. 25-125 m. annual herb. Blooms MaySep
None
Habitat is disturbed ruderal and non-native annual
grassland; unsuitable for this species. No vernal pools are present on site.

Sagittaria sanfordii
Sanford's arrowhead
None/None
G3 / S3
1B.2
Marshes and swamps. In standing or slow-moving
freshwater ponds, marshes, and ditches. 0-605 m.
perennial rhizomatous herb (emergent). Blooms MayOct(Nov) None
Habitat is disturbed ruderal and non-native annual
grassland. A canal with flowing water was observed
adjacent to the alignment; this species was not
observed during the site visit.

Tropidocarpum capparideum
caper-fruited tropidocarpum
None/None
G1 / S1
1B.1
Valley and foothill grassland. Alkaline clay. 0-360 m.
annual herb. Blooms Mar-Apr None
Habitat is disturbed ruderal and non-native annual
grassland; unsuitable for this species.

Tuctoria greenei
Greene's tuctoria
Endangered/Rare
G1 / S1
1B.1
Vernal pools. Vernal pools in open grasslands. 25-
1325 m. annual herb. Blooms May-Jul(Sep) None
Habitat is disturbed ruderal and non-native annual
grassland; unsuitable for this species. No vernal pools are present on site.

Bombus crotchii
Crotch bumble bee
None/Candidate Endangered
G3G4 / S1S2
Coastal California east to the Sierra-Cascade crest and south into Mexico. Food plant genera include
Antirrhinum, Phacelia, Clarkia, Dendromecon,
Eschscholzia, and Eriogonum.

None
Habitat is disturbed ruderal and non-native annual
grassland and no flood plant genera were observed
on site during the site visit.

Branchinecta lynchi
vernal pool fairy shrimp
Threatened/None
G3 / S3
Endemic to the grasslands of the Central Valley,
Central Coast mountains, and South Coast mountains,
in astatic rain-filled pools. Inhabit small, clear-water sandstone-depression pools and grassed swale, earth
slump, or basalt-flow depression pools.

None No suitable pools for this species were observed on site.

Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus
valley elderberry longhorn
beetle
Threatened/None
G3T2 / S2
Occurs only in the Central Valley of California, in
association with blue elderberry (Sambucus
mexicana). Prefers to lay eggs in elderberries 2-8
inches in diameter; some preference shown for
"stressed" elderberries.

None No blue elderberry shrubs were observed on site.

Efferia antiochi
Antioch efferian robberfly
None/None
G1G2 / S1S2 Known only from Contra Costa and Fresno counties. None No suitable habitat on site.

Linderiella occidentalis
California linderiella
None/None
G2G3 / S2S3
Seasonal pools in unplowed grasslands with old
alluvial soils underlain by hardpan or in sandstone
depressions. Water in the pools has very low
alkalinity, conductivity, and total dissolved solids.

None No seasonal pools suitable for this species were
observed on site.

Lytta molesta
molestan blister beetle
None/None
G2 / S2 Inhabits the Central Valley of California, from Contra Costa to Kern and Tulare counties. None No suitable habitat on site.

Metapogon hurdi
Hurd's metapogon robberfly
None/None
G1G2 / S1S2 Known only from Antioch (Dunes?) and Fresno. None No suitable habitat on site.

Hypomesus transpacificus
Delta smelt
Threatened/Endangered
G1 / S1
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Seasonally in Suisun
Bay, Carquinez Strait & San Pablo Bay. Seldom found
at salinities > 10 ppt. Most often at salinities < 2ppt.

None No suitable aquatic habitat is on site.

Ambystoma californiense
California tiger salamander
Threatened/Threatened
G2G3 / S2S3
WL
Central Valley DPS federally listed as threatened.

Santa Barbara and Sonoma counties DPS federally
listed as endangered. Need underground refuges,
especially ground squirrel burrows, and vernal pools
or other seasonal water sources for breeding.

None No suitable aquatic breeding habitat was observed on site or recorded within two miles of the site.
19-08117: Southwest Green Trail CIP Project IS/MND
Plants and Lichens
Invertebrates
Fish
Amphibians
Rana draytonii
California red-legged frog
Threatened/None
G2G3 / S2S3
SSC
Lowlands and foothills in or near permanent sources
of deep water with dense, shrubby or emergent
riparian vegetation. Requires 11-20 weeks of
permanent water for larval development. Must have
access to estivation habitat.

None No suitable aquatic habitat was observed.

Spea hammondii
western spadefoot
None/None
G3 / S3
SSC
Occurs primarily in grassland habitats, but can be
found in valley-foothill hardwood woodlands. Vernal
pools are essential for breeding and egg-laying.

None No suitable aquatic breeding habitat was observed.

Anniella pulchra
northern California legless lizard
None/None
G3 / S3
SSC
Sandy or loose loamy soils under sparse vegetation.

Soil moisture is essential. They prefer soils with a high moisture content.

None No suitable habitat was observed on site; soil
appeared dry in areas with sparse vegetation.

Arizona elegans occidentalis
California glossy snake
None/None
G5T2 / S2
SSC
Patchily distributed from the eastern portion of San
Francisco Bay, southern San Joaquin Valley, and the
Coast, Transverse, and Peninsular ranges, south to
Baja California. Generalist reported from a range of
scrub and grassland habitats, often with loose or
sandy soils.

None Outside of the known range of this species; habitat on site is disturbed and unsuitable for this species.

Emys marmorata
western pond turtle
None/None
G3G4 / S3
SSC
A thoroughly aquatic turtle of ponds, marshes, rivers,
streams and irrigation ditches, usually with aquatic
vegetation, below 6000 ft elevation. Needs basking
sites and suitable (sandy banks or grassy open fields)
upland habitat up to 0.5 km from water for egglaying.

Low
A ponding basin and canal were observed adjacent to
the site and provide marginally suitable habitat for
this species.

Gambelia sila
blunt-nosed leopard lizard
Endangered/Endangered
G1 / S1
FP
Resident of sparsely vegetated alkali and desert scrub
habitats, in areas of low topographic relief. Seeks
cover in mammal burrows, under shrubs or structures
such as fence posts; they do not excavate their own
burrows.

None No suitable scrub habitat was observed on site.

Phrynosoma blainvillii
coast horned lizard
None/None
G3G4 / S3S4
SSC
Frequents a wide variety of habitats, most common
in lowlands along sandy washes with scattered low
bushes. Open areas for sunning, bushes for cover,
patches of loose soil for burial, and abundant supply
of ants and other insects.

None
Habitat on site is disturbed and unsuitable for this
species.

Thamnophis gigas
giant gartersnake
Threatened/Threatened
G2 / S2
Prefers freshwater marsh and low gradient streams.

Has adapted to drainage canals and irrigation ditches.

This is the most aquatic of the gartersnakes in
California.

None
An irrigation ditch is located adjacent to the site, but the site is outside of the current known range of this
species and no CNDDB occurences are recorded
within ten miles of the site.

Agelaius tricolor
tricolored blackbird
None/Threatened
G2G3 / S1S2
SSC
Highly colonial species, most numerous in Central
Valley & vicinity. Largely endemic to California.

Requires open water, protected nesting substrate,
and foraging area with insect prey within a few km of
the colony.

None No suitable nesting substrate was observed on site.

Athene cunicularia
burrowing owl
None/None
G4 / S3
SSC
Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts,
and scrublands characterized by low-growing
vegetation. Subterranean nester, dependent upon
burrowing mammals, most notably, the California
ground squirrel.

Moderate
Suitable burrows for this species were observed
adjacent to the site but no sign of burrowing owl was
found at the openings. Four CNDDB occurrences are
recorded within ten miles of the site. Burrowing owl
have been known to utilize disturbed areas.

Buteo swainsoni
Swainson's hawk
None/Threatened
G5 / S3
Breeds in grasslands with scattered trees, junipersage flats, riparian areas, savannahs, & agricultural or ranch lands with groves or lines of trees. Requires
adjacent suitable foraging areas such as grasslands, or alfalfa or grain fields supporting rodent populations.

Low
Suitable foraging habitat is present and a prey base
(California ground squirrel and pocket gopher) were
observed on site. Marginally suitable nesting habitat
was observed within five miles of the site. Three
CNDDB occurrences are recorded within ten miles of
the site.

Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis
western yellow-billed cuckoo
Threatened/Endangered
G5T2T3 / S1
Riparian forest nester, along the broad, lower floodbottoms of larger river systems. Nests in riparian jungles of willow, often mixed with cottonwoods,
with lower story of blackberry, nettles, or wild grape.

None No suitable riparian habitat was observed on site.

Phalacrocorax auritus
double-crested cormorant
None/None
G5 / S4
WL
Colonial nester on coastal cliffs, offshore islands, and along lake margins in the interior of the state. Nests
along coast on sequestered islets, usually on ground
with sloping surface, or in tall trees along lake
margins.

None No suitable nesting habitat was observed.

Vireo bellii pusillus
least Bell's vireo
Endangered/Endangered
G5T2 / S2
Summer resident of Southern California in low
riparian in vicinity of water or in dry river bottoms;
below 2000 ft. Nests placed along margins of bushes
or on twigs projecting into pathways, usually willow,
Baccharis, mesquite.

None This species does not occur in the region during the nesting season.

Antrozous pallidus
pallid bat
None/None
G5 / S3
SSC
Deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands and
forests. Most common in open, dry habitats with
rocky areas for roosting. Roosts must protect bats
from high temperatures. Very sensitive to
disturbance of roosting sites.

None No suitable habitat for roosting was observed.

Dipodomys nitratoides exilis
Fresno kangaroo rat
Endangered/Endangered
G3TH / SH
Alkali sink-open grassland habitats in western Fresno
County. Bare alkaline clay-based soils subject to
seasonal inundation, with more friable soil mounds
around shrubs and grasses.

None
Habitat on site is disturbed and unsuitable for this
species.

Eumops perotis californicus
western mastiff bat
None/None
G5T4 / S3S4
SSC
Many open, semi-arid to arid habitats, including
conifer & deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub,
grasslands, chaparral, etc. Roosts in crevices in cliff faces, high buildings, trees and tunnels.

Low Trees with open crevices were observed adjacent to
the site.

Lasiurus cinereus
hoary bat
None/None
G5 / S4
Prefers open habitats or habitat mosaics, with access
to trees for cover and open areas or habitat edges for
feeding. Roosts in dense foliage of medium to large
trees. Feeds primarily on moths. Requires water.

Low Trees with dense foliage were observed adjacent to
the site.

Perognathus inornatus
San Joaquin Pocket Mouse
None/None
G2G3 / S2S3
Grassland, oak savanna and arid scrubland in the
southern Sacramento Valley, Salinas Valley, San
Joaquin Valley and adjacent foothills, south to the
Mojave Desert. Associated with fine-textured, sandy,
friable soils.

Low
No burrows indicative of this species were observed
on site. Habitat on site is marginally suitable for this species.

Taxidea taxus
American badger
None/None
G5 / S3
SSC
Most abundant in drier open stages of most shrub,
forest, and herbaceous habitats, with friable soils.

Needs sufficient food, friable soils and open,
uncultivated ground. Preys on burrowing rodents.

Digs burrows.

None Site disturbance history and proximity to developed areas precludes this species.

Vulpes macrotis mutica
San Joaquin kit fox
Endangered/Threatened
G4T2 / S2
Annual grasslands or grassy open stages with
scattered shrubby vegetation. Need loose-textured
sandy soils for burrowing, and suitable prey base.

Low
Coyote dens suitable for use by this species were
observed adjacent to the site. No sign of this species
was observed during the site visit. One CNDDB
occurrence is recorded within ten miles of the site.

Northern Claypan Vernal Pool
Northern Claypan Vernal Pool
None/None
GNR / SNR None This natural community was not observed during the site visit.

Reptiles
Birds
Mammals
Sensitive Natural Communities
Appendix C
Cultural Resources Technical Memo

Rincon Consultants, Inc.
7080 North Whitney Avenue
Suite 101
Fresno, California 93720
559 228 9925 OFFICE AND FAX
[email protected]
www.rinconconsultants.com
Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers
November 1, 2019
Project No: 19-08117
Han Ngo, P.E., Project Manager
City of Fresno, Department of Public Works
2600 Fresno Street, Fourth Floor, Room 4016
Fresno, CA 93721
Subject: Cultural Resource Assessment for Southwest Green Trail Project, City of Fresno, Fresno County, California
Dear Mr. Ngo:

Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) was retained by the City of Fresno to perform a Phase I cultural resources assessment for the Southwest Green Trail Project (project) located between South Thorne and South West Avenues in the City of Fresno, Fresno County, California. The purpose of this letter report is to document the results of the tasks performed by Rincon, specifically: a cultural resources records search, Native American outreach, and pedestrian field survey. This project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City of Fresno (City) is the lead agency under CEQA.

Project Alignment
The project alignment consists of an approximately 0.8-mile long Class I trail paralleling the Fanning Ditch alignment between South Thorne and South West Avenues in the Edison neighborhood of the City of Fresno, Fresno County, California. The property lies within the Fresno South Quadrangle, Township 14 South, Range 20 East Sections 7-9, 16-18 (Figure 1, Attachment A).

Cultural Resources Records Search
Rincon archaeologist Dustin Merrick conducted a search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) located at the California State University, Bakersfield on October 9, 2019. The search was performed to identify all previously recorded cultural resources, as well as previously conducted cultural resources studies within the project alignment and a 0.5-mile radius surrounding it. The CHRIS search included a review of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), the Office of Historic Preservation Historic Properties Directory, the California Inventory of Historic Resources, and the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility list.

City of Fresno, Department of Public Works
Southwest Green Trail Project