CITY OF FRESNO
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR
WELLHEAD TREATMENT IMPROVEMENTS AT PUMP
STATION 102A
S
tate Clearinghouse Number: 2023050144
City of Fresno
Department of Public Utilities
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
Prepared by:
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
455 W. Fir Avenue
Clovis, CA 93611
Attachments:
Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration Appendix G/Initial Study for a Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
CITY OF FRESNO
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR WELLHEAD TREATMENT IMPROVEMENTS AT PUMP STATION 102A
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Fresno (City) plans to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Wellhead Treatment Improvements at Pump Station (PS) 102A (Project). The public hearing will be held at the City of Fresno, City Council Chambers, located at 2600 Fresno Street, Fresno, CA 937 21, on Thursday, June 15, 2023, at 9:00am.
The City’s Department of Public Utilities proposes to construct wellhead treatment facilities to mitigate 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP) concentrations found at the existing public water supply well, known as Pump Station 102. The treatment facilities will be constructed at the proposed PS 102A located less than 1,000 feet northeast of the existing PS 102.
The Project would construct the following components: t ie-in to the existing PS 102 well head piping , approximately 1,400 linear feet (LF) of 12-inch diameter raw water main between the existing PS 102 well site and the proposed treatment site, PS 102A (1,200 gpm flow rate) , develop a 175’ by 160’ triangular treatment site with a masonry block wall and metal fencing, frontage improvements, four (4) 12-foot by 15- foot granulated activated carbon vessels, approximately 450 LF of 18-inch diameter storm drain pipe, drive approach, 20’ wide x 75’ long concrete driveway, and 20’ wide metal drive access gate, PG&E transformer, 40’ x 40’ GAC vessel pit , approximately 30’ x 10’ masonry block equipment building with chemical room containing sodium hypochlorite storage tank, chemical metering pump, chlorine and nitrate analyzers , one (1) generator, groundwater extraction well with manifold piping, deaeration tank, and booster pump (this well may be required in the future due to additional demand in the area or as a replacement of Well 102A), and manganese filters.
Pursuant to the California Env ironmental Quality Act, an Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared, describing the degree of potential environmental impacts of the Project. The City has assessed the potential environmental impacts of this Project and has determined that they will be less than significant. Copies of the Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration are on file and available for public review upon written notice to 2600 Fresno Street, Fresno, CA 93721. The public review period during which the City will receive comments on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration will begin on May 5, 2023, and end on June 5, 2023. Comments should be in writing, if possible, and addressed to Briza Sholars at Provost & Pritchard, 455 W. Fir Ave, Clovis CA 93611, or at [email protected]
The site has been reviewed in accordance with Government Code Section 65962.5 and is not listed as a hazardous waste or materials site.
1 APPENDIX G/INITIAL STUDY FOR A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist Form for:
Wellhead Treatment Improvements at Pump Station 102A
1. Wellhead Treatment Improvements at Pump Station 102A
2. Lead agency name and address:
City of Fresno
Department of Public Utilities
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
3. Contact person and phone number:
Anita Luera, Supervising Engineering Technician
City of Fresno
Department of Public Utilities/Utilities Planning & Engineering (559) 621-1625
4. Project location:
The Project is located in the City of Fresno, California, approximately 160 miles south of Sacramento and 100 miles north of Bakersfield (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). The proposed Project is located at the existing City of Fresno Pump Station 102 site, existing road right of way on N. Fowler Avenue and E. Grant Avenue, and at the proposed Pump Station 102A site which will be comprised of a portion of Assessor’s Parcel Number 313-890-06S. The centroid of the Project site is 36° 44’ 54.456” N, 119° 40’ 44.472” W.
5. Project sponsor's name and address:
Anita Luera, Supervising Engineering Technician
City of Fresno
Department of Public Utilities/Utilities Planning & Engineering 2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
6. General & Community plan land use designation:
Light Industrial
7. Zoning:
IL (Light Industrial)
8. Description of project:
Project Background and Purpose
The existing well at pump station (PS) 102, located on the west side of North Fowler Avenue southwest of the Project site, was originally fitted with a pump and motor capable of producing 1,500 GPM. The well was rehabilitated in 2013 and the pump downsized to 1,200 GPM conforming to the City-set standard of approximately 40 feet of drawdown. The well has been offline since 2018 due to the presence of 1,2,3 - Trichloropropane (1,2,3-TCP) in concentrations exceeding the drinking water Maximum Contaminant Limit (MCL). 1,2 -Dibromo-3-chloropropane has also been detected in the groundwater at PS 102, however, concentrations have not exceeded the MCL.
2 Project Description
The City of Fresno, Department of Public Utilities proposes to construct wellhead treatment facilities to mitigate TCP concentrations at the existing public water supply well at PS 102. The treatment facilities will be constructed at the new PS 102A site, located less than 1,000 feet northeast of the existing PS 102.
The Project would construct the following:
• Tie-in to the existing PS 102 well head piping.
• Approximately 1,400 linear feet (LF) of 12 -inch diameter raw water main between the existing PS 102 well site and the proposed treatment site, PS 102A (1,200 gpm flow rate).
• Develop a 175’ by 160’ triangular treatment site (PS 102A) with a masonry block wall and metal fencing, in addition to frontage improvements. • Four (4) granulated activated carbon vessels that are approximately 12 feet wide and 15 feet tall.
• Approximately 450 LF of 18-inch diameter storm drainpipe. • Drive approach, 20’ wide x 75’ long concrete driveway, and 20’ wide metal drive access gate.
• PG&E transformer.
• 40’ x 40’ GAC vessel pit, com prised of a concrete pad approximately five feet below grade.
• Approximately 30’ x 10’ masonry block equipment building with chemical room containing sodium hypochlorite storage tank, chemical metering pump, and chlorine and nitrate analyzers.
• One (1) future generator (if needed).
• Future public water supply well with manifold piping (This well may be required in the future due to additional demand in the area or as a replacement of Well 102).
• Future deaeration tank and booster pump (if needed).
• Future manganese filters (if needed).
Operation and Maintenance
Due to the nature of the Project, operation and maintenance visits would occur as - needed or during scheduled visits.
The area of potential effect (APE) is approximately 3.2 acres which includes the existing well site, road right of way and vacant triangular site. 3 9. Surrounding land uses and setting:
Planned Land Use Existing Zoning Existing Land Use
North Light Industrial IL (Light Industrial) Industrial East Light Industrial IL (Light Industrial) Industrial
South Medium Density
Residential
RS-5 (Residential, Single-
Family, Medium Density) Residential
West Medium Density
Residential
RS-5 (Residential, Single-
Family, Medium Density) Residential
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):
• State Water Resources Control Board
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Pub lic Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun?
The State requires lead agencies to consider the potential effects of proposed projects and consult with California Native American tribes during the local planning process for the purpose of protecting Traditional Tribal Cultural Resources through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1, the lead agency shall begin consultation with the California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographical area of the proposed project. Such significant cultural resources are either si tes, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a tribe which is either on or eligible for inclusion in the California Historic Register or local historic register, or, the lead agency, at its discretion, and support by substantial evidence, choose to treat the resources as a Tribal Cultural Resources (PRC Section 21074(a)(1-2)). According to the most recent census data, California is home to 109 currently recognized Indian tribes. Tribes in California currently have nearly 100 separate reservations or Rancherias. Fresno County has a number of Rancherias such as Table Mountain Rancheria, Millerton Rancheria, Big Sandy Rancheria, Cold Springs Rancheria, and Squaw Valley Rancheria. These Rancherias are not located within the city limits.
Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural reso urces, and reduce the 4 potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See PRC Section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per PRC Section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that PRC Section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.
Currently, the Table Mountain Rancheria Tribe and the Dumna Wo Wah Tribe have requested to be notified pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52). A certified letter was mailed to the above -mentioned tribes on December 19, 2022 . The 30-day comment period ended on January 18, 2023. Neither tribe requested consultation.
5 Figure 1: Regional Location Map
6 Figure 2: Topographic Map
7 Figure 3: Aerial Map of Project Site
8 Figure 4: General Plan Land Use Designation Map
9 Figure 5: Zone District Map
10 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" 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 and 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:(To be completed by the Lead Agency).On the basis of 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. _X_ 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 in 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 (EIR) is required.
___ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” 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 EIR is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
___ I find that although the proposed projec t could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
_________________________________________________________________ Anita Luera, Supervising Engineering Technician, Date May 2, 2023
11 1. For purposes of this Initial S tudy, the following answers have the corresponding meanings:
a. “No Impact” means the specific impact category does not apply to the project, or that the record sufficiently demonstrates that project specific factors or general standards applicable to the project will result in no impact for the threshold under consideration.
b. “Less Than Significant Impact” means there is an impact related to the threshold under consideration, but that impact is less than significant.
c. “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation” means there is a potentially significant impact related to the threshold under consideration, however, with the mitigation incorporated into the project, the impact is less than significant . For purposes of this Initial Study “mitigation incorporated into the project” means mitigation originally described in the GP PEIR and applied to an individual project, as well as mitigation developed specifically for an individual project.
d. “Potentially Significant Impact” means there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant related to the threshold under consideration.
2. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as ge neral standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
3. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
4. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant.
If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
5. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impac t" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from, "Earlier Analyses," as described in (6) below, may be cross-referenced).
6. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursu ant to the tiering, Program EIR, or other 12 CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the PEIR or another earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
7. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate int o the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances).
Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
8. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS – Except as provided in PRC Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock out -
croppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
X
13 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) In non -urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality public
views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experi enced from
publicly accessible vantage point).
If the project is in an urbanized
area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic
quality?
X
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
X
Baseline Conditions
Scenic vistas are areas that are considered to be a viewpoint , either, naturally occurring or man-made, that would be aesthetically pleasing to the general public and as a result provide a benefit to the area. Such resources provide a visual benefit to those who have access to them. The Proposed treatment site is planned and zoned for Light Industrial (IH) uses and is currently vacant. The area surrounding the site also consists of tall light industrial uses, two- and three-story residential dwellings, and trees. There are no facade standards in the IL zone district, however landscape screening is required for the project site as it is adjacent to residential areas. The General Plan does not identify any scenic vistas within proximity of, nor viewable from or near, the Project site. Scenic resources identified in the General Plan include the Sierra Nevada mountain range, however views are obstructed due to trees, buildings, and often smog. The nearest designated State scenic highway is approximately 13.6 miles east-southeast of the Project site.
DISCUSSION
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No Impact. There are no designated scenic vistas within proximity of the Project site.
Construction of the Project components would be shorter than buildings in the vicinity and would not obstruct existing public views of the Sierra Nevada mountain range .
There would be no impact.
14 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. As described above in Baseline Conditions, there are no identified scenic resources, trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings on or near the subject site.
There are no State scenic highways within the Project’s vicinity. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on scenic resources such as trees and rock outcroppings, historic buildings, or state scenic highways.
c) In non-urbanized areas, s ubstantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project treatment site, 102A is located in the City of Fresno, an urbanized area, and is currently vacant. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable zoning regulations governing scenic value or quality.
These would include vegetative screening from residential land uses. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would result in the construction of above ground equipment, however this equipment would be painted and not po lished chrome. Additionally, the 40x40 GAC vessel pit will be constructed approximately five feet below grade to help minimize the impact of the proposed height of the vessels.
No exterior lights are proposed. Therefore, the Project would create less than significant impact on daytime or nighttime views in the area.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are warranted for Aesthetics.
15 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES – In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental e ffects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farm -
land), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monito -
ring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non -
agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
X
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))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land
or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
X
16 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
X
Baseline Conditions
The Project site is designated Farmland of Local Importance in the California Department of Conservation’s (DOC) 2018 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. The Project site is zoned IL and is currently vacant. The Project site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract.
Applicable Regulations
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP): The FMMP produces maps and statistical data used for anal yzing impacts to California’s agricultural resources.
Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation status; the best quality land is called Prime Farmland. The maps are updated every two years with the use of a computer mapping system, aerial imagery, public review, and field reconnaissance.
The California DOC’s 2018 FMMP is a non-regulatory program that produces "Important Farmland" maps and statistical data used for analyzing impacts on California’s agricultural resources. The Important Farmland maps identify eight land use categories, five of which are agriculture related: prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, unique farmland, farmland of local importance, and grazing land – rated according to soil quality and irrigation status. The land use category found on the Project site is summarized below:
• Farmland of Local Importance (L): All farmable lands within Fresno County that do not meet the definitions of Prime, Statewide, or Unique. This includes land that is or has been used for irrigated pasture, dryland farming, confined livestock and dairy, poultry facilities, aquaculture and grazing land. The Fresno County Board of Supervisors modified its Farmland of Local Importance definition in 2001, adding the confined animal agriculture component.
17 DISCUSSION
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. The Project treatment site, 102A is designated on the FMMP maps as Farmland of Local Importance. No portion of the Project site is designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. As such, the Project will not involve the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use. Therefore, there would be no impact.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact. The Project treatment site is zoned for Light Industrial uses and is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. There would be no impact.
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))?
No Impact. The Project site is not within the vicinity of a forest 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)). According to the City of Fresno General Plan, the Planning Area does not include any land used or designated for timber, forest land, or timber harvesting industry. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land. There would be no impact.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. As discussed above, the Project is not within th e vicinity of a forest 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)). Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of forest land to non-forest use. There would be no impact.
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?
No Impact. The Project would construct wellhead treatment facilities for TCP for an existing City groundwater well. The Project would not involve additional changes to the existing environment that would change the nature of or location such that it would 18 lead to conversion of farmlands, the nearest being west of Al Radka Park located over
0.5 miles no rthwest of the Project site, to non -agricultural uses. Furthermore, the Project would not convert forest lands to non -forest uses. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation measures are not warranted for impacts related to Agriculture and Forestry Resources.
19 Figure 6: Farmland Designation Map
20 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan ( e.g., by having
potential emissions of regulated
criterion pollutants which exceed
the San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control Districts
(SJVAPCD) adopted thresholds
for these pollutants)?
X
b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non -attainment
under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
X
c) Expose sensitive rec eptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
X
d) Result in other emissions (such
as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
X
Baseline Conditions
Regulatory Attainment Designations
Under the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is required to designate areas of the State as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified with respect to applicable standards. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not violate the applicable standard in that area. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the applicable standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria. Depending on the frequency and severity of pollutants exceeding applicable standards, the nonattainment designation can be further classified as serious nonattainment, severe nonattainment, or ex treme 21 nonattainment, with extreme nonattainment being the most severe of the classifications.
An “unclassified” designation signifies that the data does not support either an attainment or nonattainment designation. The CCAA divides districts into moderate , serious, and severe air pollution categories, with increasingly stringent control requirements mandated for each category.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designates areas for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen dioxide (NO 2) as “does not meet the primary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” For sulfur dioxide (SO2), areas are designated as “does not meet the primary standards,” “does not meet the secondary standards,” “cannot be classifie d,” or “better than national standards.” However, the CARB terminology of attainment, nonattainment, and unclassified is more frequently used. The EPA uses the same sub -categories for nonattainment status:
serious, severe, and extreme. In 1991, the EPA ass igned new nonattainment designations to areas that had previously been classified as Group I, II, or III for particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM 10) based on the likelihood that they would violate national PM10 standards. All other areas are designated “unclassified.”
The State and national attainment status designations pertaining to the San Joaquin Valley Air Board (SJVAB) are summarized in Table 1. The SJVAB is currently designated as a nonattainment area with respect to the State PM 10 standard, ozone, and fine particulate matter 2.5 microns in size (PM 2.5) standards. The SJVAB is designated nonattainment for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 standards. On September 25, 2008, the EPA re-designated the San Joaquin Valley to attainment status for the PM10 NAAQS and approved the PM10 Maintenance Plan.
Table 1: Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Designation Pollutant Averaging
Time
California Standards* National Standards*
Concentration* Attainment
Status
Primary Attainment
Status
O3 1-hour 0.09 parts per
million (ppm)
Nonattainment
/ Severe
– No Federal
Standard
8-hour 0.070 ppm Nonattainment 0.075 ppm Nonattainment
(Extreme)**
PM10 Annual
Arithmetric
Mean (AAM)
20 microgram per
cubic centimeter
(μg/m3)
Nonattainment – Attainment
24-hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3
PM2.5 AAM 12 μg/m3 Nonattainment 12 μg/m3 Nonattainment 24-hour No Standard 35 μg/m3
CO 1-hour 20 ppm Attainment /
Unclassified
35 ppm Attainment /
Unclassified 8-hour 9 ppm 9 ppm
8-hour
(Lake Tahoe)
6 ppm –
NO2 AAM 0.030 ppm Attainment 53 ppb Attainment /
Unclassified 1-hour 0.18 ppm 100 ppb
SO2 AAM – Attainment -- Attainment /
Unclassified 24-hour 0.04 ppm --
3-hour – 0.5 ppm
1-hour 0.25 ppm 75 ppb
22 Pollutant Averaging
Time
California Standards* National Standards*
Concentration* Attainment
Status
Primary Attainment
Status
Lead (Pb) 30-day
Average
1.5 μg/m3 Attainment – No
Designation /
Classification Calendar
Quarter
– --
Rolling 3-Month
Average
– 0.15
μg/m3
Sulfates (SO4) 24-hour 25 μg/m3 Attainment No Federal Standards Hydrogen
Sulfide (H2S)
1-hour 0.03 ppm
(42 μg/m3)
Unclassified
Vinyl Chloride
(C2H3Cl)
24-hour 0.01 ppm
(26 μg/m3)
Attainment
Visibility-
Reducing
Particle Matter
8-hour Extinction
coefficient:
0.23/km-visibility of
10 miles or more
due to particles
when the relative
humidity is less
than 70%.
Unclassified
* For more information on standards visit: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf ** No Federal 1-hour standard. Reclassified extreme nonattainment for the Federal 8-hour standard. ***Secondary Standard
Source: CARB 2015; SJVAPCD 2015
Criteria Pollutants
California’s ambient air monitoring network is one of the most extensive in the world, with more than 250 sites and 700 individual monitors measuring air pollutant levels across a diverse range of topography, meteorology, emissions, and air quality. Existing levels of ambient air quality an d historical trends and projections in the Project are best documented by measurements made by these monitoring sites. The nearest monitoring site to the Project is located at the Fresno-Garland Monitoring Station at 3727 North First Street in Fresno, CA.
The site measures O3, PM10, and PM2.5. Data presented in Table 2 summarize monitoring data from the CARB’s Aerometric Data Analysis and Management System for the Fresno- Garland Monitoring Station location published from 2019 to 2021.
Table 2: Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary
Air Pollutant Averaging
Time
Item 2019 2020 2021
Ozone 1-hour Max 1 Hour (ppm) 0.105 0.119 0.112
Days > State Standard (0.09 ppm) 2 10 6
8-hour Max 8 Hour (ppm) .084 .099 .093
Days > State Standard (0.070 ppm) 18 24 22
Days > National Standard (0.070
ppm)
17 24 18
Inhalable
coarse
particles
(PM10)
Annual State Annual Average (µg/m3) 35.9 48.4 41.6
24-hour National 24 Hour (µg/m3) 328.2 296.4 281.0
Days > State Standard (50 µg/m3) 72 99 91
Days > National Standard (150 µg/m3) 3 14 1
23 Air Pollutant Averaging
Time
Item 2019 2020 2021
Fine
particulate
matter (PM2.5)
Annual National Annual Average (µg/m3) 11.1 19.1 15.6
24-hour 24 Hour (µg/m3) 51.3 163.2 99.9
Days > National Standard (35 µg/m3) 10 45 30
Thresholds
To assist local jurisdictions in the evaluation of air quality impacts, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) has published the Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. This guidance document includes recommended thresholds of significance to be used for the evaluation of short -term construction, long- term operational, odor, toxic air contaminant, and cumulative air quality impacts.
Accordingly, the SJVAPCD -recommended thresholds of significance are used to determine whether i mplementation of the proposed Project would result in a significant air quality impact. Projects that exceed these recommended thresholds would be considered to have a potentially significant impact to human health and welfare. The thresholds of significance are summarized, as follows:
Short-Term Emissions of Particulate Matter (PM 10): Construction impacts associated with the proposed Project would be considered significant if the feasible control measures for construction in compliance with Regulation VII I as listed in the SJVAPCD guidelines are not incorporated or implemented, or if project-generated emissions would exceed 15 tons per year (TPY).
Short-Term Emissions of Ozone Precursors (ROG and NO X): Construction impacts associated with the proposed Pro ject would be considered significant if the project generates emissions of Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) or nitrogen oxides (NO X) that exceeds 10 TPY.
Long-Term Emissions of Particulate Matter (PM 10): Operational impacts associated with the proposed Projec t would be considered significant if the project generates emissions of PM10 that exceed 15 TPY.
Long-Term Emissions of Ozone Precursors (ROG and NO X): Operational impacts associated with the proposed Project would be considered significant if the project generates emissions of ROG or NOX that exceeds 10 TPY.
Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of Applicable Air Quality Plan: Due to the region’s nonattainment status for ozone, PM 2.5, and PM 10, if the project -generated emissions of either of the ozone precursor pollutants (i.e., ROG and NOX) or PM10 would exceed the SJVAPCD’s significance thresholds, then the project would be considered to conflict with the attainment plans. In addition, if the project would result in a change in land use and corresponding increases in vehicle miles traveled, the project may result in an increase in vehicle miles traveled that is unaccounted for in regional emissions inventories contained in regional air quality control plans.
24 Local Mobile-Source CO Concentrations: Local mobile source impacts associated with the proposed Project would be considered significant if the project contributes to CO concentrations at receptor locations in excess of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (i.e. 9.0 ppm for 8 hours or 20 ppm for 1 hour).
Toxic Air Contaminants: Exposure to toxic air contaminants would be considered significant if the probability of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual (i.e., maximum individual risk) would exceed 20 in 1 million or wo uld result in a Hazard Index greater than 1.
Odors: Odor impacts associated with the proposed Project would be considered significant if the project has the potential to frequently expose members of the public to objectionable odors.
DISCUSSION
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less than Significant Impact. CEQA requires that certain projects be analyzed for consistency with the applicable air quality plan. For a project to be consis tent with SJVAPCD air quality plans, the pollutants emitted from a project should not exceed the SJVAPCD emission thresholds or cause a significant impact on air quality. In addition, emission reductions achieved through implementation of offset requirements are a major component of the SJVAPCD air quality plans. As discussed below, construction of the Project would not result in the generation of criteria air pollutants that would exceed SJVAPCD thresholds of significance. Implementation of SJVAPCD Regulation VIII would further reduce construction dust impacts. Operational emissions associated with the project would not exceed SJVAPCD established significance thresholds for ROG, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5 emissions. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of SJVAPCD air quality plans. The impact would be less than significant.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not exceed thresholds of significance established by the SJVAPCD, as shown in Appendix A. Therefore, the Project would not result in a significant impact.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Sensitive receptors are defined as people that have an increased sensitivity to air pollution or environmental contaminants. Sensitive receptor locations include schools, parks and playgrounds, day care centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential dwelling units. The closest 25 sensitive receptors are residences adjacent to the Project site. Al Radka Park is located approximately 0.5 miles northwest of the Project site. Fancher Creek Elementary and Temperance-Kutner Elementary are located approximately 0.5 miles southwest and 0.66 miles northeast of the Project site, respectively . Construction of the Project would require the short-term use of diesel-powered equipment, typically cranes and a water we ll drill. Project emissions would not exceed thresholds of significance established by the SJVAPCD, as shown in Appendix A. The SJVAPCD has a Prioritization Screening calculator to determine the health impacts from Diesel Particulate Matter, however this calculator assumes a 70-year exposure period, while the Project is anticipated to be constructed over a six (6) month period, or approximately 0.8 percent of such period. Therefore, health risk was analyzed using CARB’s HARP2 model. DPM emissions were assumed to be 100% of the Exhaust PM10 emissions found in the CalEEMod model. As found in Table 3, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure AIR -1 (the use of EPA Tier 4 Final off -road construction equipment), the Project would not have a significant impact on sensitive receptors.
Table 3 – Health Risk Calculations
Cancer Chronic Acute
Project 37.3 2.23 0
Threshold 20 1 1
Project with AIR-1 0.001 0.005
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant Impact. Heavy-duty equipment in the project area during construction could emit odors, primarily from the equipment exhaust. However, the construction activity would cease to occur after construction is completed. No other sources of objectionable odors have been identified for the Project.
The SJVAPCD addresses odor criteria w ithin the GAMAQI. The District has not established a rule or standard regarding odor emissions, rather, the District has a nuisance rule, which states, “Any project with the potential to frequently expose members of the public to object able odors to be deemed to have a significant impact.” The proposed uses are not anticipated to emit any objectionable odors. Therefore, objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people would not occur as a result of the project. There would be a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
• AIR-1: Diesel-powered off -road construction equipment shall be equipped with EPA Tier 4 Final engines or better.
26 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – 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
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse
effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
means?
X
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?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies
or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
X
27 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
X
Baseline Conditions
The Project site is located in the southern part of Fresno within the San Joaquin Valley.
The Valley is bordered by the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range to the east, the Coast Range to the west, the Klamath Mountains and Cascade Range to the north, and the Transverse Ranges and Mojave Desert to the south.
Like most of California, the San Joaquin Valley experiences a Mediterranean climate.
Warm, dry summers are followed by cool, moist winters. Summer temperatures often reach above 90 degre es Fahrenheit (°F), and the humidity is generally low. Winter temperatures are often below 60 (°F) during the day and rarely exceed 70 (°F). On average, the Central Valley receives approximately 10 inches of precipitation in the form of rainfall yearly, most of which occurs between October and March.
The area of potential effect (APE) is surrounded by residential neighborhoods to the south and west, and ruderal/industrial areas to the north and east and is approximately 3.2 acres. The alignments are proposed in the right-of-way of existing, paved roads, and the proposed treatment facility is located on a heavily disturbed, fallow parcel. The existing wellsite is surrounded by residential houses. Five trees are present in aerial imagery located within the Fowler Ave median and the entrance of the wellsite. California State Route 180 is l ocated less than 0.2 miles northeast of the APE. The Fancher Creek Business Park is located directly east of the Project.
A watershed is the topographic region in which upland water collects and drains into a stream, river, or lake and can consist of many smaller subwatersheds. The APE lies within the Fancher Creek -Fancher Creek Canal watershed - Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 1803000903; and the Fancher Creek Canal subwatershed - HUC 180300090303.
The nearest surface water is the Fancher Creek Canal approxi mately 0.2 miles directly south of the APE. This canal is a channelized portion of Fancher Creek. The Fancher Creek-Fancher Creek Canal watershed includes Fancher Creek origins in the Sierra Nevada foothills, through to the valley floor where it is eventua lly channelized before crossing California State Route 180. The channelized Fancher Creek Canal includes upstream connections to Mud Creek as well as Hog Creek before they join Fancher Creek. The Fancher Creek Canal continues flowing west, eventually split ting into Braly 28 Canal, Central Canal, and Washington Canal west of Clovis Avenue. None of these canals appear to have a downstream connection to a known Waters of the United States, each terminating in the agricultural area east of California State Route 145.
Methodology
A thorough search of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), iNaturalist, California Herps, and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) were reviewed for potential special status plant and animal species that may be found in and around the APE. The CNDDB search included the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) areas encompassing the Malaga
7.5-minute quadrangle that contains the APE in its entirety, and for the eight surrounding quadrangles: Clovis, Fresno South, Fresno North, Conejo, Selma, Caruthers, Round Mountain, and Sanger. There are 20 special status animal species and 12 special status plant species with recorded observations within the 9-quad search. Special status species found within three miles of the APE, as well as those provided by the IPaC search, include 16 animal species and three plant species. These species, and their potential to occur within the Project area, are listed in Table 4 and Table 5 below. See also Appendix B.
Table 4: List of Special Status Animals with Potential to Occur Onsite and/or in the Vicinity
Species Status Habitat Occurrence within Project Site
American
badger
(Taxidea taxus)
CSC
Grasslands, savannas, and mountain
meadows near timberline are
preferred. Most abundant in drier
open spaces of shrub and grassland.
Burrows in soil.
Absent. The APE is highly
disturbed, consisting primarily of
paved roads, and is therefore
unsuitable for foraging or
denning. The surrounding area is
equally disturbed, consisting of
residential neighborhoods and
frequently disced parcels.
Burrowing Owl
(Athene
cunicularia)
CSC
Resides in open, dry annual or
perennial grasslands, deserts, and
scrublands with low growing
vegetation. Nests underground in
existing burrows created by
mammals, most often ground
squirrels.
Unlikely. The only potentially
suitable habitat within and
adjacent to the APE are the
frequently disced, ruderal
parcels. Due to frequent ground
disturbance, ground squirrel
burrows cannot persist, which
are required by this species.
California
Condor
(Gymnogyps
californianus)
FE,
CE,
CFP
Typically nests in cavities in canyon
or cliff faces but has also been
recorded nesting in giant sequoias in
Tulare County. Requires vast
expanse of open savannah,
grassland, and/or foothill chaparral in
mountain ranges of moderate altitude.
Forages up to 100 miles from
roost/nest site.
Absent. The APE is outside the
current known range of this
species.
California glossy
snake
(Arizona elegans
occidentalis)
CSC
Inhabits arid scrub, rocky washes,
grasslands, and chaparral. Prefers
open areas with loose soil for easy
burrowing.
Absent. The APE is outside the
current known range for this
species and suitable habitat for
this species is absent.
29 Species Status Habitat Occurrence within Project Site California tiger
salamander
(Ambystoma
californiense)
FT,
CT,
CWL
Requires vernal pools or seasonal
ponds for breeding and small
mammal burrows for aestivation.
Generally found in grassland and oak
savannah plant communities in
central California from sea level to
1500 feet in elevation.
Absent. Habitats required by this
species, including vernal pools,
are absent from the APE and
surrounding area. Upland habitat
is less than marginal for this
species within the APE due to
frequent ground disturbance.
Coast horned
lizard
(Phrynosoma
blainvillii)
CSC
Found in grasslands, coniferous
forests, woodlands, and chaparral,
primarily in open areas with patches
of loose, sandy soil and low-lying
vegetation in valleys, foothills, and
semi-arid mountains. Frequently
found near ant hills and along dirt
roads in lowlands along sandy
washes with scattered shrubs.
Absent. Due to frequent ground
disturbance and paved roads,
the APE is unsuitable for this
species. The only regional
recorded observation of this
species is from a historical
record dated 1893.
Crotch bumble
bee
(Bombus
crotchii)
CCE
Occurs throughout coastal California,
as well as east to the Sierra-Cascade
crest, and south into Mexico. Food
plant genera include Antirrhinum,
Phacelia, Clarkia, Dendromecon,
Eschscholzia, and Eriogonum.
Unlikely. Paved roads and
frequent discing of the ruderal
parcels likely prevents forage
required by this species to
persist. The only two regional
recorded observations of this
species occurred more than 100
years ago.
Delta smelt
(Hypomesus
transpacificus)
FT, CE
This pelagic and euryhaline species is
Endemic to the Sacramento-San
Joaquin River Delta, upstream
through Contra Costa, Sacramento,
San Joaquin, and Solano Counties.
Absent. Suitable perennial
aquatic habitat for this species is
absent from the APE and
surrounding lands.
Fresno
kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys
nitratoides exilis)
FE, CE
An inhabitant of alkali sinks open
grassland environments in western
Fresno County. Prefers bare, alkaline,
clay-based soils subject to seasonal
inundation with more friable soil
mounds around shrubs and grasses.
Absent. The only regional
recorded observation of this
species is listed as “Extirpated”
on CNDDB. Frequent ground
disturbance and paved roads
within the APE are unsuitable for
this species.
Least Bell’s
Vireo
(Vireo bellii
pusillus)
FE, CE
This migratory species breeds in
southern California. Breeding habitat
consists of dense, low, shrubby,
riparian vegetation in the vicinity of
water or dry river bottoms. By the
early 1980s, this species was
extirpated from most of its historic
range in California, including the
Central Valley. This species now
occurs exclusively along the coast of
southern California (USFWS, 1998).
Absent. This species is
considered extirpated from the
Central valley.
Monarch
Butterfly
(Danaus
plexippus)
FC
Roosts located in wind-protected tree
groves (eucalyptus, Monterey pine,
cypress), with nectar and water
sources nearby. Larval host plants
consist of milkweeds (Asclepias sp.).
Winter roost sites extend along the
coast from northern Mendocino to
Baja California, Mexico.
Unlikely. Paved roads and
frequent discing of the ruderal
parcels likely prevents forage
required by this species to
persist. This species would not
be expected to lay eggs within
the AEP due to location within its
migratory pathway.
30 Species Status Habitat Occurrence within Project Site Northern
California
legless lizard
(Anniella
pulchra)
CSC
Found primarily underground,
burrowing in loose, sandy soil.
Forages in loose soil and leaf litter
during the day. Occasionally
observed on the surface at dusk and
night.
Absent. Paved roads and
frequent ground disturbance
within the APE are unsuitable for
this species. The only regional
recorded observation of this
species occurred before 1900.
San Joaquin kit
fox
(Vulpes macrotis
mutica)
FE, CT
Underground dens with multiple
entrances in alkali sink, valley
grassland, and woodland in valleys
and adjacent foothills.
Unlikely. The highly disturbed
habitats within the APE are less
than marginal for this species.
The only known population of
this species in Fresno County is
located more than 40 miles
northwest of the APE.
Swainson’s
Hawk
(Buteo
swainsoni)
CT
Nests in large trees in open areas
adjacent to grasslands, grain or
alfalfa fields, or livestock pastures
suitable for supporting rodent
populations.
Unlikely. The highly disturbed
urban and residential areas in
the surrounding region are less
than marginal for this species.
The nearest contemporary
recorded observation of this
species occurred approximately
6.5 miles southwest of the APE
in annual grassland and pasture
habitat.
Vernal pool fairy
shrimp
(Branchinecta
lynchi)
FT
Occupies vernal pools, clear to tea-
colored water, in grass or mud-
bottomed swales, and basalt
depression pools.
Absent. Suitable vernal pool
habitat for this species is absent
from the APE and surrounding
lands. The APE is subject to
frequent ground disturbance and
therefore generally unsuitable for
this species.
Western Yellow-
billed Cuckoo
(Coccyzus
americanus
occidentalis)
FT, CE
Suitable nesting habitat in California
includes dense riparian willow-
cottonwood and mesquite habitats
along a perennial river. Once a
common breeding species in riparian
habitats of lowland California, this
species currently breeds consistently
in only two locations in the State:
along the Sacramento and South
Fork Kern Rivers.
Absent. This species is
considered extirpated from the
region. The only two regionally
recorded observations of this
species occurred more than 100
years ago.
31 Table 5: List of Special Status Animals with Potential to Occur Onsite and/or in the Vicinity
Species Status Habitat Occurrence within Project Site
California
jewelflower
(Caulanthus
californicus)
FE, CE,
CNPS
1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley and
Western Transverse Ranges in sandy
soils. Occurs on flats and slopes,
generally in non-alkaline grassland at
elevations between 230 feet and 6100
feet. Blooms February–April.
Absent. The disturbed habitats of
the APE are unsuitable for this
species. The only regional
recorded observation of this
species lists it as “Extirpated”
from the region.
California
satintail
(Imperata
brevifolia)
CNPS
2B
Although this facultative species is
equally likely to occur in wetlands and
non-wetlands, it is often found in wet
springs, meadows, streambanks, and
floodplains at elevations below 1600
feet. Blooms September – May.
Absent. Habitats required by this
species are absent from the APE.
The only regional recorded
observation of this species
occurred more than 100 years
ago.
Madera
leptosiphon
(Leptosiphon
serrulatus)
CNPS
1B
Found in openings in foothill
woodland, often yellow-pine forest,
and chaparral at elevations between
1000 feet and 4300 feet. Blooms April
– May.
Absent. The APE is outside the
current known elevational range
of this species. Habitats required
by this species are absent from
the APE.
Explanation of Occurrence Designations and Status Codes Unlikely: Species not observed on the site, and would not be expected to occur there except, perhaps, as a transient.
Absent: Species not observed on the site, and precluded from occurring there due to absence of suitable habitat.
STATUS CODES
FE Federally Endangered CE California Endangered
FT Federally Threatened CT California Threatened
FPE Federally Endangered
(Proposed) CCT California Threatened (Candidate)
FPT Federally Threatened
(Proposed) CFP California Fully Protected
FC Federal Candidate CSC California Species of Concern
CWL California Watch List
CCE California Endangered (Candidate)
CR California Rare
CNPS LISTING
1A Plants Presumed Extinct in
California
2A Plants Presumed Extirpated in California, but more common elsewhere. 1B Plants Rare, Threatened, or
Endangered in California and
elsewhere.
2B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more common elsewhere.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Permits may be required from the USFWS and/or CDFW if activities associated with a project have the potential to result in the “take” of a species listed as threatened or endangered under the federal and/or State Endangered Species Acts. Take is defined by the State of California as “to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill” (California Fish and Game Code, Section 86). Take is more broadly defined by the federal Endangere d Species Act to include “harm” (16 United States Code (USC), Section 1532 (19), 50 Code of Federal Regulation, Section 17.3).
CDFW and USFWS are responsible agencies under CEQA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Both agencies review CEQA and NEPA documents in order to determine the adequacy of their treatment of endangered species issues and to make project-specific recommendations for their conservation.
32 Designated Critical Habitat
When species are listed as threatened or endangered, the USFWS often designates areas of “Critical Habitat” as defined by Section 3(5)(A) of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Critical Habitat is a term defined in the ESA as a specific geographic area that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection. Critical Habitat is a tool that supports the continued conservation of imperiled species by guiding cooperation with the federal government. Designations only affect federal agency actions or federally funded or permitted activities. Critical Habitat does not prevent activities that occur within the designated area. Only activities that involve a federal permit, license, or funding and are likely to destroy or adversely modify Critical Habitat will be affected.
Migratory Birds
The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 USC 703 -712) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in any bird species covered in one of four international conventions to which the United States is a party, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. The name of the act is misleading, as it covers nearly all bird’s native to the United States, even those that are non -migratory. The MBTA encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, nests, and eggs. Additionally, California Fish and Game Code makes it unlawful to take or possess any non-game bird covered by the MBTA (Section 3513), as well as any other native non-game bird (Section 3800).
Birds of Prey
Birds of prey are protected in California under provisions of Fish and Game Code (Section 3503.5), which states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes (hawks and eagles) or Strigiformes (owls), as well as their nests and eggs.
The Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle are afforded additional protection under the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668), which makes it unlawful to kill birds or their eggs.
Nesting Birds
In California, protection is afforded to the nests and eggs of all birds. California Fish and Game Code (Section 3503) states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pu rsuant thereto”. Breeding -season disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered a form of “take” by the CDFW.
Jurisdictional Waterways and Associated Riparian Habitat
CDFW has jurisdiction over the bed and bank of natural drainages and lakes according to provisions of Section 1601 and 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. Activities that may substantially modify such waters through the diversion or obstruction of t heir natural flow, change or use of any material from their bed or bank, or the deposition of 33 debris require a notification of a Lake or Streambed Alteration. If CDFW determines that the activity may adversely affect fish and wildlife resources, a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement will be prepared. Such an agreement typically stipulates those certain measures will be implemented to protect the habitat values of the lake or drainage in question.
Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act regulates the dredge or fill material into waters of the United States. Drainage channels and adjacent wetlands may be considered “waters of the United States” or “jurisdictional waters” subject to the jurisdiction of the USACE. The extent of jurisdiction has been defi ned in the Code of Federal Regulations and clarified in federal courts.
The State of California also asserts jurisdiction over drainages, wetlands, and other aquatic features. The limits of State jurisdiction differ from those of the USACE. Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and nine local RWQCBs have regulatory authority over activities affecting water quality in all surface waters of the State, consisting of rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands of the State. The RWQCB for a given region regulates discharges of fill or pollutants into waters of the State through the issuance of various permits and orders. Discharges into waters of the State that are also waters of the United State s require a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB as a prerequisite to obtaining certain federal permits.
DISCUSSION
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a c andidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The APE does provide marginal nesting habitat for multiple avian species, including ground nesting birds such as Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus). Birds nesting within the APE during construction have the potential to be injur ed or killed by Project -related activities. In addition to the direct “take” of nesting birds, nesting birds within the APE or adjacent areas could be disturbed by Project -related activities resulting in nest abandonment.
Projects that adversely affect the nesting success of raptors and migratory birds or result in the mortality of individual birds are considered a violation of State and federal laws.
Mitigation measures BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-3 identified below have been identified to protect these species.
Project-Related Impacts to Special Status Animal Species Absent From, or Unlikely to Occur on, the Project Site
34 Of the 16 regionally occurring special status animal species, all were found to be absent or unlikely to occur within the APE due to past or ongoing disturbance and/or the absence of suitable habitat or resources. Existing conditions include traffic and noise from Fowler Avenue, high human activity from the residential neighborhood, and an almost complete void of habitat or resources within the Project site. Areas containing herbaceous vegetation appear to be frequently disced and trees within the APE are likely ornamental. It is therefore anticipated that there would be no impacts to special status animal species or their required habitats. (Appendix B)
Project-Related Impacts to Special Status Plant Species Absent From, or Unlikely to Occur on, the Project Site
Of the three regionally occurring special status plant species, all were found to be absent within the APE due to unsuitable habitat, known range, elevation, and soil type.
The only vegetation occurring within the APE appears to include ornamental trees and shrubs and non -native, maintained grass patches. The majority of the site is paved and/or developed, and high traffic, industrial processes, and human activity within the APE are the daily norm. It is highly unlikely that special status plant species would currently exist within the APE due to the highly disturbed environment and lack of habitat. Therefore, it is anticipated that the project would result in no impact to special status plant species. (Appendix B)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulatio ns or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. No riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities have been identified within or near the APE. The Project site is located within a highly disturbed and developed area and road right of way is nearly completely paved. The Project area and genera l vicinity consist of paved roads, residential housing, and ruderal/industrial lots. Any habitat historically located within or near the APE has been eliminated and/or developed. Therefore, the project would have no adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community.
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?
No Impact. The Project site does not contain any federally protected wetlands or other waters of the United States as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The nearest surface water is the Fancher Creek Canal approximately 0.2 miles directly south of the APE. This canal is a channelized portion of Fancher Creek. The Fancher Creek Canal flows across the City of Fresno, eventually splitting into Braly Canal, Central Canal, and Washington Canal west of Clovis Avenue. None of these canals appear to ha ve a downstream connection to a known Waters of the United States, each terminating in the agricultural area east of California State Route 145. Thus, the Project would not have any adverse effects on federally protected wetlands or waters 35 of the United States and there would be no impact.
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?
No Impact. The APE is in the southeast quadrant of the City of Fresno within a highly disturbed area south of State Route 180. There are no waterways within the APE for migratory fish, nor is there habitat for the existence of native wildlife nursery sites.
According to aerial imagery, the Fancher Creek Canal contains several patches of riparian vegetation which could act as cover for wildlife species utilizing the canal to disperse through the urban landscape. The canal, however, is separated from the APE by a 0.2 -mile portion of a 4 -lane road (Fowler Avenue), and a large, ruderal plot of land that appears to be frequently disced. No features within the APE would be expected to serve as a wildlife movement corridor. Therefore, the Project would not contribute any impacts to wildlife species or habitat that aren’t already present and would have no impact on the movement of wildlife species or established corridors.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. The Project is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Fresno General Plan. There are no wetlands or natural watercourses within the APE, and nearly the entire area is paved, therefore native wildlife habitat is non -existent. The Project is consistent with the resource objectives and policies contained within the City of Fresno General Plan: Parks, Open Space, and Schools Element that address protection of natural resources. Therefore, there would be no impact with local policies or ordinances.
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?
No Impact. The Project is not within a designated Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Plan, or any other State or local habitat conservation plan. There would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures
BIO-1: The Project’s construction activities will occur, if feasible, between September 16 and January 31 (outside of nesting bird season) in an effort to avoid impacts to nesting birds.
BIO-2: If activities must occur within nesting bird season (February 1 to September 15), a qualified biologist will conduct a pre -construction survey for all nesting birds within the Project boundary and an additional 50 feet surrounding the Project, no more than 7 days prior to the start of construction. All raptor nests would be considered “active” upon the nest-building stage. 36 BIO-3: On discovery of any active nests or breeding colonies near work areas, the biologist will determine appropriate construction setback distances based on applicable CDFW and/or USFWS guidelines and/or the biolog y of the species in question. Construction buffers will be identified with flagging, fencing, or other easily visible means, and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the nestlings have fledged and are no longer dependent on the nest.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
X
Baseline Conditions
Cultural Records Search
A records search from the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), located at California State University, Bakersfield (CSUB) was conducted in November 2022. The SSJVIC records search includes a review of all recorded archaeological and built -environment resources as well as a review of cultural resource reports on file. In addition, the California Points of Historical Interest, the California Historical Landmarks, the California Register of Historical Resources, the National Register of Historic Places, and the California State Built Environment Resources Directory listings were rev iewed for the above referenced APE and an additional ¼ -mile radius. Due to the sensitive nature of cultural resources, archaeological site locations are not released. (Appendix C).
Additional sources included the State Office of Historic Preservation Historic Properties Directory, Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, and the California Inventory of Historic Resources.
37 According to the information in their files, there are no recorded resources within the Project area, and it is n ot known if any exist there. There are ten recorded resources in the one -half mile radius: P -10-003038, 003039, 004415, 006089, 006091, 006100, 007232, 007233, 007234, and 007235. These resources consist of four historic era buildings, an historic era brid ge, an historic era row of palm trees, an historic era trash scatter and well, and three prehistoric era ground stones.
Resource P-10-004415, Bridge #42-65, has been given a National Register status code of 3S, indicating that this resource appears eligi ble for listing in the National Register of Historic Places as an individual property through survey evaluation. There are no other recorded cultural resources within the Project area that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, the California Points of Historical Interest, California Inventory of Historic Resources, or the California State Historic Landmarks. (Appendix C)
Sacred Lands File Search
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC ) in Sacramento was also contacted in November 2022. They were provided with a brief description of the Project and a map showing its location and requested that the NAHC perform a search of the Sacred Lands File to determine if any Native American resources have been recorded in the immediate APE. The NAHC identifies, catalogs, and protects Native American cultural resources -- ancient places of special religious or social significance to Native Americans and known ancient graves and cemeteries of Native A mericans on private and public lands in California. The NAHC is also charged with ensuring California Native American tribes’ accessibility to ancient Native American cultural resources on public lands, overseeing the treatment and disposition of inadverte ntly discovered Native American human remains and burial items, and administering the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (CalNAGPRA), among many other powers and duties.
NAHC provide a current list of Native American Tribal c ontacts to notify of the project. (Appendix C)
DISCUSSION
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact. As stated above, a Cultural Resources Records Search dated November 15 2022 was received from the SSJVIC at CSUB. According to the information in their files, there are no recorded resources within the Project area, and it is not known if any exist there.
The CHRIS records search also confirmed there have been no previous cultural resource studies conducted within the Project area. There have been five cultural resource studies conducted within the one-half mile radius. The search also confirmed the absence of identified cultural resources within the Project APE. The search also indicated that there were ten cultural resources with the half -mile radius. These 38 resources consist of four historic era buildings, an historic era bridge, an historic era row of p alm trees, an historic era trash scatter and well, and three prehistoric era ground stones. The proposed Project construction activities as they stand today, would not impact any of these resources.
The majority of the Project is located on land that has been previously disturbed and currently developed and improved. Due to the Project site having been previously disturbed, it is unlikely that the Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or archaeological res ource. The Project would be required to follow all applicable federal, State, and local requirements set for archaeologic resource recovery. In the unlikely event that an archaeological resource is uncovered during the construction of this Project, all con struction activities would cease, and a qualified archaeologist would be contacted to assess the uncovered resource. Any impacts would be considered less than significant. (Appendix C)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeolo gical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated . As stated above, a Cultural Resources Records Search dated November 15 2022 was received from the SSJVIC at CSUB. According to the information in their files, there are no recorded resources within the Project area, and it is not known if any exist there. There are ten recorded resources in the one -half mile radius that consist of four historic era buildings, an historic era bridge, an historic era row of palm trees, an historic era trash scatter and well, and three prehistoric era ground stones. The proposed Project construction activities as they stand today, would not impact any of these resources.
The majority of the Project is located on land that has been previously disturbed and currently developed and improved. Due to the Project site having been p reviously disturbed, it is unlikely that the Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or archaeological resource. The Project would be required to follow all applicable federal, State, and local requirements set for archaeologic resource recovery. In accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-1, in the unlikely event that an archaeological resource is uncovered during the construction of this Project, all construction activities would cease, and a qualified archaeologist would be contacted to assess the uncovered resource. Any impacts after implementation of mitigation measure CUL -1 would be considered less than significant. (Appendix C)
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. There is no evidence or record that the Project has the potential to be an unknown burial site, or the site of buried human remains. Although no formal cemeteries or other places of human internment are anticipated to exist on the Project site due to its existing disturbed status, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resource Code Section 5097.98 and mitigation measure CUL -2, if human remains 39 are uncovered, construction activities would cease, and the Fresno County Coroner would be contacted. The Project would adhere to all applicable federal, State, and local requirements regarding the discovery of human remains due to Project activities.
Any impacts after implementation of mitigation would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
• CUL-1: If previously unknown resources are encountered before or during grading activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified historical resources specialist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified historical resources specialist shall make recommendations to the City on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. If the resources are determined to be unique historical resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, measures shall be iden tified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. No furth er grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any historical artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City-approved institution or person who is capable of providing long-term preservation to allow future scientific study.
• CUL-2: In the event that human remains are unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, all activity shall cease immediately. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(a). If the remains are determined to be of Nat ive American descent, the coroner shall within 24 hours notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then contact the most likely descendent of the deceased Native American, who shall then serve as the consultant on how to proceed with the remains. Pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(b), upon the discovery of Native American remains, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibi lity of multiple human remains. The landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants' preferences for treatment.
40 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. ENERGY – Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state
or local plan for renewable energy
or energy efficiency?
X
Baseline Conditions
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) supplies electricity and natural gas to the Project area.
PG&E obtains its power through hydroelectric, thermal (natural gas), wind, and solar generation of purchases. PG&E continually produces new electric generation and natural gas sources and implements continuous improvements to gas lines throughput its service areas to ensure the provision of services to users.
DISCUSSION
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would comply with Building Energy Efficiency Standards included in Title s 20 and 24 of the California Code of Regulations, which requires new development to incorporate energy efficiency standards, incl uding include energy -efficient lighting and motor requirements, into Project designs.
Current regulations for construction equipment, heavy -duty equipment, and earthmoving equipment used in construction contributes to reductions in energy as well as reduction in pollutant emissions. California implemented its In -Use Off-Road Diesel Fueled Fleets regulations (off -road regulation) which applies to all self - propelled off -road diesel vehicles 25 horsepower or greater and most two -engine vehicles. The Small Off -Road Engines program was implemented by California to apply to categories of outdoor powered equipment and specialty vehicles often used in construction.
41 Through compliance with energy reduction standards and regulations aimed at reducing consumption of transportation related energy consumption, as well as the energy provider’s energy reduction programs, the Project will have less than significant impacts related to energy usage during Project operations and construction and its impacts related to wastefu l, inefficient, or unnecessary energy consumption overall, would be less than significant.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations, including the building and lighting energy efficiency requirements of Title 24, Part 6 (California Energy Code), and the appliance energy efficient requirements of Title 20 for electrical motors, therefore the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not warranted for impacts related to Energy.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project:
a) Directly or Indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
X
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
X
ii) Strong seismic ground
shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
42 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
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?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil,
as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
X
Baseline Conditions
Geology and Soils
The Project site is located in the City of Fresno. The City of Fresno is located along the eastern section of the southern San Joaquin Valley portion of the Great Valley Geomorphic Province of California. The San Joaquin Valley is bordered to the north by the Sacramento Valley portion of the Great Valley, to the east by the Sierra Nevada, to the west by the Coast Ranges, and to the south by the Transverse Ranges. The San Joaquin sedimentary basin is separated from the Sacramento basin to the north by the buried Stockton arch and associated Stockton Fault.
Faults and Seismicity
Most of Fresno is situated within an area of relatively low seismic activity and is not located within a known active earthquake fault zone. The Project is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and there are no known active faults within the City of Fresno. The nearest major fault is the San Andreas Fault, located approximately 69 43 miles west of the Project site. The San Andreas fault is the dominant active tectonic feature of the Coast Ranges and represents the boundary of the North Ame rican and Pacific plates. The San Joaquin Fault is located approximately 63 miles west of the Project site.
Liquefaction
The potential for liquefaction, which is the loss of soil strength due to seismic forces, is dependent on soil types and density, the groundwater table, and the duration and intensity of ground shaking. Although no specific liquefaction hazard areas have been identified in Fresno County, this potential is recognized throughout the San Joaquin Valley where unconsolidated sediments and a high-water table coincide. Soil types along the Valley floor are not generally conducive to liquefaction because they are generally too course.
Furthermore, the average depth to groundwater within the City of Fresno is approximately 85 to 95 feet which al so minimizes liquefaction potential. According to the California DOC’s Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation map, the Project site is not located in an area identified to be at a risk of liquefaction.
Soil Subsidence
Subsidence occurs when a large land area settles due to over -saturation or extensive withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural gas. These areas are typically composed of open-textured soils, high in silt or clay content, which become saturated. Although some areas in Fresno County have experienced subsidence due to groundwater overdraft, the City of Fresno’s elevation has remained relatively unchanged. The Project site’s underlying soil consists wholly of Atwater sandy loam. Soils onsite represent a low risk of subsidence.
Dam and Levee Failure
Hundreds of dams and reservoirs have been built in California for water supply, flood control, hydroelectric power, and recreational uses. The storage capacity of these dams varies across the State from large reservoirs with capacities exceeding millions of acre- feet (AF) to small reservoirs with capacities from hundreds to thousands of AF. Depending on the season, water from these reservoirs is released into the river system of the State and eventually reaches the Pacific Ocean. The San Joaquin River, located at the north edge of the City of Fresno, is the primary river in the vicinity. The San Joaquin River is impounded by a dam which forms the 520 -thousand acre -foot Lake Millerton, approximately 21 miles north -northeast of the Project site. If Friant dam were to fail, a large portion of Fresno County, including the City of Fresno, would be inundated with water.
DISCUSSION
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
44 i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Less than Significant Impact. As described in Baseline Conditions above, the Project is not located on or near a known earthquake fault and would not directly or indirectly cause potential adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault. Impacts would be less than significant.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than Significant Impact. Although there are no known earthquake faults within the vicinity of the Project, and strong ground shaking is unlikely, construction of the proposed expansion structures would comply with the most recent seismic standards as set forth in the California Building Standards Code. Compliance with these standards would ensure potential impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less than Significant Impact. Like most of California, the Project site is located in an area that does experience seismic related activity to varying degrees.
However, the Project site is not located in the vicinity of a fault zone or an identified area that would result in substantial seismic related ground failure that would result in adverse effects to people or the environment. Impacts would be less than significant.
iv. Landslides?
Less than Significant Impact. Landslides usually occur in locations with steep slopes and unstable soils. The Project is located on the Valley floor where no major geologic landforms exist, and the topography is essentially flat and level.
Therefore, the Project site has minimal-to-no landslide susceptibility, and there will be a less than significant impact.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project treatment site is vacant and relatively flat, and thus only minor grading activities would be required to ensure necessary drainage occurs. The Project would construct impermeable surfaces, which would be required to drain through approved drainage systems. There would be a less than significant impact.
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? 45 Less than Significant Im pact. The proposed Project is not located in an area that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on - or off- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. The Department of Conservation has not identified the Project site as being in an area that would be at risk of lateral spreading, and liquefaction or collapse. In addition, the United States Geologic Survey has not identified the Project area as a location that is likely to experience soil subsidence. Impacts would be less than significant.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as updated), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
No Impact. The proposed Project would not be located on expansive soil creating a substantial direct or indirect risk to life or property. The Project would be located on land that is comprised of 100 percent Atwater sandy loam according to an NRCS Web Soil Survey on the Project site. Hanford fine sandy loam soil is expansive nor made of clay. Therefore, there would be no impact.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste-water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project treatment site is currently connected to the City’s sewer system and would continue to be after implementation of the Project.
Septic installation or alternative wastewater dispo sal systems are not necessary for the Project. Impacts would be less than significant.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not warranted for impacts related to Geology and Soils. 46 Figure 7: Soils Map
47 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
X
Baseline Conditions
Commonly identified GHG emissions and sources include the following:
Carbon dioxide (CO 2) is an odorless, colorless natural greenhouse gas and is emitted from natural and anthropogenic sources. Natural sources include the following:
decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic out gassing. Anthropogenic sources include the burning of coal, oil, natural gas, and wood.
Methane (CH 4) is a flammable greenhouse gas. A natural source of methane is the anaerobic decay of organic matter. Geological deposits, known as natural gas fields, also contain methane, which is extracted for fuel. Other sources are from landfills, fermentation of manure, and ruminants such as cattle.
Nitrous oxide (N2O), also known as laughing gas, is a colorless greenhouse gas. Nitrous oxide is produced by microbial processes in soil and water, including those reactions that occur in fertilizer containing nitrogen. In add ition to agricultural sources, some industrial processes (fossil fuel -fired power plants, nylon production, nitric acid production, and vehicle emissions) also contribute to its atmospheric load.
Water vapor is the most abundant, and variable greenhouse g as. It is not considered a pollutant; in the atmosphere, it maintains a climate necessary for life.
Ozone (O3) is known as a photochemical pollutant and is a greenhouse gas; however, unlike other greenhouse gases, ozone in the troposphere is relatively sh ort-lived and, therefore, is not global in nature. Ozone is not emitted directly into the atmosphere but is formed by a complex series of chemical reactions between volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, and sunlight.
48 Aerosols are suspensions of part iculate matter in a gas emitted into the air through burning biomass (plant material) and fossil fuels. Aerosols can warm the atmosphere by absorbing and emitting heat and can cool the atmosphere by reflecting light.
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are nontoxi c, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the earth’s surface). CFCs were first synthesized in 1928 for use as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents.
CFCs destroy stratospheric ozone; t herefore, their production was stopped as required by the Montreal Protocol in 1987.
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are synthetic chemicals that are used as a substitute for CFCs. Of all the greenhouse gases, HFCs are one of three groups (the other two are perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride) with the highest global warming potential. HFCs are human-made for applications such as air conditioners and refrigerants.
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) have stable molecular structures and do not break down through the ch emical processes in the lower atmosphere; therefore, PFCs have long atmospheric lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000 years. The two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacture.
Sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6) is an inorgan ic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It has the highest global warming potential of any gas evaluated. Sulfur hexafluoride is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semic onductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas for leak detection.
Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are largely attributable to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. About three-quarters of human emissions of CO 2 to the global atmosphere during the past 20 years are due to fossil fuel burning. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O have increased by at least 40 percent, 150 percent, and 20 percent respectively since the year 1750. GHG emissions are typically expressed in carbon dioxide -equivalents (CO 2e), based on the GHG’s Global Warming Potential (GWP). The GWP is dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. For example, one ton of CH 4 has the same contribution to the greenhouse effect as approximately 25 tons of CO2. Therefore, CH4 is a much more potent GHG than CO2.
DISCUSSION
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. As depicted in Appendix A , construction of the Project would emit approximately 60 MTCO 2e. As the Project proposes to add treatment equipment to an existing water supply system, additional greenhouse gas 49 emissions related to the operations and maintenance would be minimal-to-none. The City has adopted a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, and thus the Project is required to comply with all applicable General Plan policies for ministerial and discretionary actions. These requirements, which include the provision of water and energy conservation, would ensure the Project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions that may have a significant effect on the environment. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant Impact. The City has adopted a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, and thus the Project is required to comply with all applicable General Plan policies for ministerial and discretionary actions. These requirements, which include compliance with water and ener gy conservation regulations described above in the Energy section , would ensure the Project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions that may have a significant effect on the environment. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not warranted for impacts related to Greenhouse Gas.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL – Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X
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?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school?
X
50 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
X
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 for
people residing or working in the
project area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures ,
either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
X
Baseline Conditions
Hazardous Materials
The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List is a planning document used by the State, local agencies, and developers to comply with CEQA requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites.
Government C ode Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to develop at least annually an updated Cortese List. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese Lis t. Other State and local government agencies are required to provide additional hazardous material release information for the Cortese List. DTSC's EnviroStor database provides DTSC's component of Cortese List data. In addition to the EnviroStor database, the SWRCB Geotracker database provides information on regulated hazardous waste facilities in California, including underground storage tank cases and non- underground storage tank cleanup programs, including Spills-Leaks-Investigations- 51 Cleanups sites, Department of Defense sites, and Land Disposal program. A search of the DTSC EnviroStor database and the SWRCB Geotracker performed in October 2022 determined that there are no known active hazardous waste generators or hazardous material spill sites within the Project site or immediate surrounding vicinity.
Airports
The proposed Project is located approximately 1.75 miles southeast of the Fresno - Yosemite International Airport. The Project is located within the Traffic Pattern Zone in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP).
Emergency Response Plan
The City’s Emergency Preparedness Officer is responsible for ensuring that Fresno’s emergency response plans are up -to-date and implemented properly. The Emergency Preparedness Officer facilitates cooper ation between City departments and other local, state and federal agencies, including Fresno County. The Fresno County Office of Emergency Services coordinates the development and maintenance of the Fresno County Operational area Master Plan.
Sensitive Receptors
The nearest sensitive receptors are residences located adjacent to the Project site. The nearest school s are Fancher Creek Elementary and Temperance -Kutner Elementary , located 0.5 miles southwest and 0.66 miles northeast of the Project site, respectively. The nearest park is Al Radka Park, located 0.5 miles northwest of the Project site.
DISCUSSION
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the Project would require the use and transport of hazardous materials, including fuels, oils, and other chemicals (e.g., paints, lead, adhesives, etc.) typically used during construction. It is lik ely that these hazardous materials and vehicles would be stored by the contractor(s) on-site during construction activities. Project operations would require the use of sodium hypochlorite (bleach). Improper use and transportation of hazardous materials could result in accidental releases or spills, potentially posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment. However, all materials used during construction and operations would be conta ined, stored, and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations established by DTSC, the EPA and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Any impacts would be less than significant.
52 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?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project consists of the construction of treatment facilities for an existing groundwater well, and would store chemicals, including sodium hypochlorite (bleach), in a small masonry block building . Those materials would be contained, stored, and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations. A Hazardous Materials Business Plan would be required to be prepared and complied with. Therefore, any impacts would be less than significant.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existin g or proposed school?
Less than Significant Impact. No schools are located within one-quarter mile of the Project site. This condition precludes the possibility of activities associated with the Project exposing schools within a one -quarter mile radius of the project site to hazardous materials. Any impacts would be less than significant.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. The Project does not involve land that is listed as a hazardous materials site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and is not included on a list compiled by the Department of T oxic Substances Control. A search of the DTSC EnviroStor database and the SWRCB Geotracker performed in October 2022 determined that there are no known active hazardous waste generators or known hazardous material spill sites within the Project site. There would be no impact.
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 for people residing or working in the project area?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located less than two miles from and is located within a Traffic Pattern Zone of the Fresno-Yosemite International Airport. The Traffic Pattern Zone prohibits uses that are hazards to flight, which include physical (i.e. tall objects), visual, and electronic forms of interference. The Project would result in structures lower than surrounding buildings, would not cause glare, and would comply with all FCC regulations regarding wireless telecommunication. Impacts would be less than significant.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the Project may require partial closure 53 of streets for the purpose of connecting to existing infrastructure and for construction vehicles. Such encroachments in the public right -of-way require approval of an Encroachment Permit by the Department of Public Works and compliance with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact to emergency evacuation routes or emergency response routes on local roadways as a result of the Project.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. According to Cal Fire’s Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps, the nearest wildland, which has a moderate fire risk, is located approximately three miles north of the Project site. Given the absence of wildlands in the vicinity, implementation of the Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. There would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not warranted for impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the
basin?
X
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:
X
54 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
i) Result in a substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off-site; X
ii) Substantially increase the rate
or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site:
X
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
X
iv) impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or
seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project
inundation?
X
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
X
Baseline Conditions
The City of Fresno overlies the Kings Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin (SJV Basin). The Kings Subbasin underlies Fresno, Kings, and Tulare Counties and has a surface area of 976,000 acres (1,530 square miles). The Kings Subbasin has not been adjudicated. The Department of Water Resources (DWR) classified the Kings Basin as being in a state of critical overdraft in its Bulletin 118-80.
The SJV Basin comprises the southern portion of the Great Central Valley of California and is bounded to the north by the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta and Sacramento Valley, to the east by the Sierra Nevadas, to the south by the San Emigdio and Tehachapi Mountains, and to the west by the Coast Ranges.
The Kings Subbasin, located within the southern half of the SJV Basin, is bounded to the north by the San Joaquin River, to the east by the alluvium -granite rock interface of the Sierra Nevada foothills, and to the west by the Delta -Mendota and Westside Subbasins.
The Kings Subbasin is bounded to the south by the northern boundary of the Empire West Side Irrigation District, the southern fork of the Kings River, the southern boundary of the 55 Laguna Irrigation District, the northern boundary of the Kings County Water District, and the western boundary of Stone Corral Irrigation District.
DISCUSSION
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project proposes to treat groundwater to drinking water quality levels. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations so that water quality standards are met and continue to be maintained.
Filter backwash would be discharged into the sewer system to be treated by the City’s wastewater treatment system. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project proposes the treatment of existing water supplied to residents, and therefore would not significantly decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Impacts from the Project would be less than significant.
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?
Less than Significant Impact. Due to the Project site’s small site, the Project is not required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which is used to ensure that substantial erosion or siltation of large projects does not occur. Given that the site is small and relatively flat, there erosion and siltation that could occur during construction activities is minimal. Therefore, the potential for impacts that could result in substantial erosion or siltation, on - or off-site, would be low. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amoun t of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Less than Significant Impact. Stormwater runoff from the Project site would be directed to existing drainage basins owned and maintain ed by FMFCD.
Implementation of the Project would increase the impermeability of the Project site, however FMFCD’s Standard Plans and Specifications allows for a higher runoff coefficient than what is proposed by the Project. D ue to the size of the site and the planned runoff levels, impacts would be less than significant. 56 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?
Less than Significant Impact. The Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District’s Standard Plans and Specifications allows for a higher runoff coefficient than what is proposed by the Project. Existing stormwater basins in the area are planned for a runoff coefficient larger than the Project site’s impermeable area.
The Project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runo ff. There would be a less than significant impact.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact. The Project is not located in a flood zone. The Project would not impede or redirect flood flows. There would be no impact.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No Impact. The Project is not located within or near a body of water; therefore, it is not located in a tsunami or seiche zone. According to the FEMA Flood Map Service Center, the Project site is also not located in a flood hazard zone. The nearest flood zone is located 1.4 miles northwest of the Project site (see Figure 7). Therefore, there would be no impact.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than Significant Impact. Applicable water quality control plans for the City of Fresno are included within the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins. The City is currently in compliance with all facets of the water quality control plan.
The City is a member of the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA).
In accordance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act GSAs, located in areas in critical overdraft are required to adopt Groundwater Sustainability Plans by 2020. The GSA has adopted its plan on November 21, 2019. The City of Fresno has several projects in the Groundwater Sustainability Plan, as shown in Table 5 below:
57 Table 5: City of Fresno Groundwater Projects
City of Fresno Groundwater Projects
Project Description Benefit Milestone Year
RESIDENTIAL
WATER
METER
RETROFIT
PROJECT
Residential meter installation contracts
commenced in 2010 and run through the end
of 2012. Per capita water consumption from
2007 through 2011 averaged 277 gpcd. Per
capita consumption after meters were
installed, excluding the drought period of
2012-2016, averages 201 gpcd (2017 &
2018). The population at the end of 2011 was
513,358. Applying the per capita water
consumption values from before and after
meter installation yields a 43,600 AF reduction
for the base 2011 population.
43,600
AF/yr 2015
T-3 SURFACE
WATER
TREATMENT
FACILITY
Construction of a 3 MG water storage tank
and 4-MGD surface water treatment facility
(with possible future expansion to 8-MGD).
The project will include, engineering & design,
construction of tank, booster pumps,
operations and treatment buildings, and
associated site improvements.
2,210 AF/yr 2015
SOUTHWEST
RECLAMATION
FACILITY AND
DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM
This project includes the design and
construction of an initial 5-MGD tertiary
treatment facility and transmission and
distribution system. The reclaimed water
produced and distributed in the southwest
region will provide a direct potable water
offset, thus reducing the reliance on and use
of groundwater supplies.
5,140 AF/yr 2020
NIELSEN
RECHARGE
FACILITY
Expand the City's groundwater recharge
program and includes land acquisition,
development of new recharge basins,
structures and conveyance systems such as
pipelines, canal turnouts, metering systems,
and interties. The project goal is to optimize
groundwater recharge efforts so as to balance
groundwater extractions as laid out in the
City's 2014 Metropolitan Water Resources
Plan.
3,500 AF/yr 2020
SOUTHEAST
SURFACE
WATER
TREATMENT
FACILITY
Design, construction, start-up, and
commissioning of the new Southeast Surface
Water Treatment Facility (SESWTF) and
associated large diameter transmission mains.
New facility is required to treat surface water
diverted from the Kings River through canal
and raw water pipeline system. Historically,
the City has largely relied on groundwater to
meet municipal water demands. The SESWTF
will utilize surface water supplies and permit
the balanced use of both groundwater and
surface water, thus greatly reducing
groundwater extractions.
82,240
AF/yr 2020
NORTHEAST
SURFACE
WATER
TREATMENT
The Northeast Surface Water Treatment
Facility Expansion Project is part of the City's
near-term program to attain and maintain the
sustainable use of water resources. This
30,840
AF/yr 2025
58 City of Fresno Groundwater Projects
Project Description Benefit Milestone Year
FACILITY
EXPANSION
project is for the 30-MGD expansion of the
existing surface water treatment facility for a
total capability of 60-MGD. To enable water
from the expansion to reach further into the
City large diameter transmission mains will
also be constructed. This project will meet
future growth demands and ensure
groundwater utilization attains and remains at
safe-yield levels.
SOUTHEAST
RECLAMATION
FACILITY AND
DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM
As part of the City's long-term goal to utilize
resources sustainably the development of a
recycled water program will be key. This
project includes design and construction of an
initial 8-MGD tertiary treatment facility with
transmission and distribution mains. The
reclaimed water produced and distributed in
the southeast region will provide a direct
potable water offset, thus reducing the
reliance on and use of groundwater supplies.
8,227 AF/yr 2030
A project would obstruct implementation of a Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan if it prevented the development of identified projects to sustainably maintain groundwater. As the Project does not seek to develop on property identified for these groundwater management projects, the Project would therefore have a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not warranted for impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality.
59 Figure 8: FEMA Flood Zone Map
60 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community? X
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?
X
Baseline Conditions
The Project is within the City of Fresno. The surrounding area is planned for Medium Density Residential and Light Industrial uses. Existing land uses in the surrounding area consists of warehouses and single-family residences. See Figure 4 and Figure 5 for the Project site’s general plan land use designation and zoning, respectively.
DISCUSSION
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The Project involves the development of water treatment facilities on an existing vacant lot and pipelines within existing r oad right of way . The Project would not require the vacation or abandonment of any streets or sidewalks. Therefore, the Project would have no impact associated with the physical division of established land uses in the 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?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project is consistent with respective general plan objectives and policies and will not significantly conflict with applicable land use plans, policies or regulations of the City of Fresno . Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigations measures are not warranted for impacts related to Land Use. 61 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES – 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?
X
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?
X
Baseline Conditions
The Project is located in central Fresno County, in the southern section of California’s Great Valley Geomorphic Province, or Central Valley. Historically, Fresno County has been a leading producer of a variety of minerals including aggregate, fossil fuels, metals, and other materials used in construction or in industrial processes. Currently, aggregate and petroleum are the City’s most significant mineral resources.
The City is located within the Fresno production -consumption region, which spans parts of Madera and Fresno Counties. The California Geological Survey, previously known as California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, analyzed this region for the presence of aggregate resources in a 1988 mineral land classification report and a subsequent 1999 update. In each of these reports CGS classified the Fresno PC region according to the presence or absence of significant aggregate deposits. The land classification is presented in the form of Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs). Most of City of Fresno, outside of the San Joaquin and Kings River Resource Areas has an MRZ -3 designation and may contain economically recoverable mineral resources. MRZ -3 represents areas containing mineral deposits the significance of which cannot be evaluated from data available to the CGS.
DISCUSSION
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?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project is located in an MRZ-3 zone. The MRZ-3 zone, as discussed above, is defined as an area containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated. Therefore, due to the unknown significance determination, there are no known mi neral resources that would be of value to the 62 region and residents of the state. There would be a less than significant impact.
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?
No Impact. The Project is located in an MRZ -3 zone and is not delineated on an applicable land use plan as a locally -important mineral resource recovery site. The MRZ-3 Zone, as discussed in Section 4.12.1, is defined as an area containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated. The Project site does not contain economically -viable soils, as depicted in Section 4.7. There are no known current or historic mineral resource extraction or recovery o perations in the Project vicinity nor are there any known significant mineral resources onsite. The closest active mining operation is operated by Vulcan Materials located approximately 11 miles northeast of the Project site, at 11599 North Friant Road. Th ere would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not warranted for impacts related to Mineral Resources.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. NOISE – 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?
X
b) Generation of excessive
ground borne vibration or ground
borne noise levels?
X
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?
X
63 Baseline Conditions
The Project site is located in an area with Light Industrial land uses to the north and east and Residential, Single -Family land uses to the south and west. The Project is located inside the Airport Influence Areas of Fresno-Yosemite International Airport, as identified in th e Fresno County ALUCP. The nearest airstrip of any kind is Fresno -Yosemite International Airport, whose nearest runway is located approximately 2.24 miles northwest of the Project site. SR 99, located immediately southwest, is identified in the Fresno General Plan as a significant transportation noise source within the planning area.
DISCUSSION
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 in other applicable local, state, or federal standards of other agencies?
Less than Significant Impact. Activities associated with construction could result in temporary elevated noise levels and ground borne vibration, with maximum construction noise levels ranging between 74 dBA to 89 dBA at 50 feet distance.
Project generated construction noise would be short in duration. In addition, pursuant to Fresno Municipal Code, Chapter 10, Article 1, construction would be restricted to the hours of 7:00 am to 10:00 pm, Monday through Saturday. Construction activities within these hours are exempt from noise requirements.
Table 15-2506-B of the City of Fresno Development Code est ablishes standards for noise exposure from transportation noise sources. Table 15 -2506-C of the Development Code establishes land use compatibility for new development proposed near transportation noise sources. Given the minor increase in additional construction- and operation and maintenance -related traffic, the Project itself is not considered a significant source of transportation noise. As such, the Project would be within acceptable transportation related noise standards and there would be no impact o f this type. Additionally, upon completion of construction, Project generated noise would remain the same as it is currently during on-site operations.
b) Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
Less than Significant Imp act. Impacts related to the Project’s generation of noise and ground borne vibration both during construction and operation would be reduced by existing natural or human made barriers, distance, and through adherence to existing regulations. Water well drilling would generate approximately 0.089 peak particle velocity (PPV) and 87 vibration decibels (VdB), when measured at 25 feet away from the vibration source. Table 7 -5 of the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual describes the damage th reshold to buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage as 0.12 PPV or 90 VdB. Given that the vibration would 64 occur 82 feet away and at less 0.12 PPV or 90 VdB, impacts would be less than significant.
c) For a project located within an airport land us e 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?
Less than Significant Impact. While the Project site is located in an airport land use plan of Fresno-Yosemite International Airport, it is located outside the airport’s 75, 70, 65, and 60dB zones. The Project site is not located within two miles of a ny other private, public or public use airport. Therefore, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels, and there would be a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not warranted for impacts related to Noise.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project:
a) 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)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers
of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X
Baseline Conditions
The Project is located in the City of Fresno, which as of 2020, is estimated to have a population of 544,510. The Project site is located in the southern portion of the City of Fresno. The treatment site is vacant and located in an area used for light industrial and residential purposes.
DISCUSSION
Would the project:
65 a) 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)?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project proposes to make alterations to the City water system for the purposes of treating the existing water supply, and therefore does not propose any residential units that would increase population growth in the area.
The Project also does not propose to chang e General Plan land uses that would substantially increase residential population. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The Project would not demolish, nor result in the demolition of any residences or housing units. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not warranted for impacts related to Population and Housing.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES – Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for
any of the public services:
Fire protection? X
Police protection? X
Schools? X
Parks? X
Other public facilities? X
Baseline Conditions
66 Fire Protection: The Project site is served by the City of Fresno Fire Department for its fire protection services. Fire Station No. 15 is located approximately 1.7 miles southwest of the Project site.
Police Protection: The Project site is served by the City of Fresno Police Department for its police protection services. The closest existing City of Fresno Police Department is located approximately 1.1 miles southwest of the Project site.
Schools: The Project is located in the Clovis Unified School District. The nearest school is Fancher Creek Elementary, located 0.5 miles southwest of the Project site.
Parks: Al Radka Park, located northwest of the Project site, is approximately 0.5 miles away.
Landfills: The American Avenue Disposal Site, located approximately 26 miles southeast of the Project serves the majority of the City of Fresno.
DISCUSSION
Would the project:
a) 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 object ives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project proposes to construct water treatment facilities and ancillary equipment. Existing water supply is contaminated with 1,2,3-TCP and 1,2,Dubromo -3-chloropropane has been detected. The water treatment process would require the use of sodium hypochlorite (bleach) , which is hazardous in large quantities, but would be stored on-site in a contained structure. The Project would be required to comply with a Hazardous Material Business Plan (HMBP). Impacts to fire protection services would be less than significant.
ii. Police protection?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project proposes to construct water treatment facilities and ancillary equipment. Due to the nature of the Project, calls for service are anticipated to be minimal. Impacts to police protection services would be less than significant.
iii. Schools?
No Impact. The Project proposes to construct a water treatment facilities and 67 ancillary equipment. The Project would not generate additional employees or residents. There would be no impact to schools.
iv. Parks?
No Impact. The Project would not generate additional employees or residents.
There would be no impact to parks.
v. Other public facilities?
Less than Significant Impact. Implementation of the Project would generate some waste from water treatment byproducts, however these quantities would be minimal. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not warranted for impacts related to Public Services.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. RECREATION - Would the project:
a) 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?
X
b) Does the project include
recreational facilities or require
the const ruction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
X
Baseline Conditions
The City of Fresno has numerous neighborhood parks located throughout the City and three regional parks serving the entire metropolitan area. The nearest park is Al Radka park, located approximately 0.5 miles northwest of the Project site.
DISCUSSION
Would the project:
68 a) 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?
No Impact. The water treatment Project does not include any features that would 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. No impacts would occur.
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational fa cilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No Impact. As mentioned above, the Project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities; therefore, there would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not warranted for impacts regarding Recreation.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. TRANSPORTATION – Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
X
c) Substantially increase hazards
due to a geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate
emergency access? X
69 Baseline Conditions
The City of Fresno General Plan, Mobility and Transportation Element is intended to provide a comprehensive program of transportation planning through policies for all modes of transportation. The General Plan establishes Traffic Impac t Zones to ensure projects provide transportation infrastructure in accordance with plans. The Project is located within Traffic Impact Zone III, which generally represents areas near or outside the City Limits but within the Sphere of Influence as of December 31, 2012.
City of Fresno adopted CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Thresholds, dated June 25, 2020, pursuant to Senate Bill 743. The thresholds described therein are referred to herein as the City of Fresno VMT Thresholds. The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds document was prepared and adopted consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.3 and 15064.7. The December 2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory) published by the Governor’s Off ice of Planning and Research (OPR), was utilized as a reference and guidance document in the preparation of the Fresno VMT Thresholds.
DISCUSSION
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the Project may require the closure or partial closure of streets, but such effects would be temporary and would be required to comply with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) as required by a Public Works encroachment permit. The Project, once constructed, would not affect any circulation system, transit, roadways, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact.
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less than Significant Impact. Senate Bill (SB) 743 requires that relevant CEQA analysis of transportation impacts be conducted using a metric known as vehicle miles traveled (VMT) instead of Level of Service (LOS). VMT measures how much actual auto travel (additional miles driven) a proposed project would create on California roads. If the project adds excessive car trave l onto our roads, the project may cause a significant transportation impact.
The State CEQA Guidelines were amended to implement SB 743, by adding Section 15064.3. Among its provisions, Section 15064.3 confirms that, except with respect to transportation projects, a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact. Therefore, LOS measures of impacts on traffic facilities is no longer a relevant CEQA criteria for transportation impacts.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(4) states that “[a] lead agency has discretion to 70 evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revision to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.”
On June 25, 2020, the City of Fresno adopted CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds, dated June 25, 2020, pursuant to Senate Bill 743 to be effective of July 1, 2020. The thresholds described therein are referred to herein as the City of Fresno VMT Thresholds. The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds document was prepared and adopted consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.3 and 15064.7. The December 2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory) published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), w as utilized as a reference and guidance document in the preparation of the Fresno VMT Thresholds.
The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds adopted a screening standard and criteria that can be used to screen out qualified projects that meet the adopted criteria from needing to prepare a detailed VMT analysis.
The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds Section 3.0 regarding Project Screening 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 less than significant impact. These may be size, location, proximity to transit, or trip ‐making potential. For transportation projects, the primary attribute to consider with transportation projects is the potential to increase vehicle travel, someti mes referred to as “induced travel.”
The VMT thresholds allow for the screening out of projects that generate a low volume of daily traffic. The City allows the screening out of project that generate less than 500 average daily trips (ADTs).The proposed water treatment facility would generate minimal operational and maintenance trips, which would approximate to less than one (1) ADT. In conclusion, the Project will result in a less than significant VMT impact and is consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b).
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
No Impact. The Project does not propose any off -site improvements to the local transportation network that would result in sharp curves, dangerous intersections, or other hazards. Any design of internal drive aisles, access driveways, or other circulation improvemen ts would be required to adhere to the City of Fresno Fire Department’s design standards which are imposed on project developments during 71 the building plan check and development review process. Since the Project is not incompatible with surrounding land use s, there are no offsite improvements, and all on-site improvements would be made adhering to the latest design standards for the City of Fresno preventing hazardous conditions. There would be no impact.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than Si gnificant Impact. The Project does not involve a change to any emergency response plan. Construction of the Project would require work in the existing right-of-way, and as such temporary lane closures may occur . Work in the right-of-way requires preparatio n of and compliance with a Traffic Control Plan prepared in accordance with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). As such, there would be a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not warranted for impacts related to Transportation
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in
PRC section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value
to a California Nat ive American
tribe, and that is:
X
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
PRC section 5020.1(k), or,
X
72 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
ii) A resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evi -
dence, to be significant pursuant
to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of PRC s ection 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of PRC s ection
5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe.
X
Baseline Conditions
Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, et seq. (AB 52)
Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, et seq. (codification of AB 52, 2013 -14) requires that a lead agency, within 14 days of determining that it will undertake a project, must notify in writing any California Native American Tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project if that Tribe has previously requested notification about projects in that geographic area. The notice must briefly describe the project and inform Tribes they have 30 days from receipt of notification to request formal consultation. The lead agency then has 30 days to initiate the consultation, which then continues until the parties come to an agreement regarding necessary mitigation or agree that no mitigation is needed, or one or both parties determine that negotiation occurred in good faith, but no agreement will be made.
Pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3, the City of Fresno has received letters from the Dumna Wo Wah and Table Mountain Rancheria of California Tribal Governments officially requesting notification. The City sent letters to these two tribes notifying them of the Project and provided a map. These letters were sent via certified mail on December 19, 2022. No requests for consultation have been received by the City.
Sacred Lands File Search
In addition to Native American Outreach pursuant to AB 52, the NAHC was contacted to perform an SLF. The NAHC identifies, catalogs, and protects Native American cultural resources -- ancient places of special religious or social significance to Native Americans and known ancient graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private and public lands in California. The NAHC is also charged with ensuring California Native American tribes’ accessibility to ancient Native American cultural resources on public lands, overseeing the treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovered Native American 73 human remains and burial items, and administering the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, among many other powers and duties. The NAHC reviewed the Sacred Lands File and found no record of tribal cultural resources.
DISCUSSION
Would the project
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listin g 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
Less than Significant Impact. No request for tribal consultation for the Project have been received. In addition, the NAHC SLF results confirmed there were no recorded tribal cultural resources in the Project area.
In the unlikely event that an archaeological resource is uncovered during construction, tribal in relation or not, all construction would cease, and a qualified archaeologist would be contacted to assess the resource. The Project would adhere to all applicable federal, State, and local requirements in regard to tribal cultural resources.
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Less than Significant Impact. No request for tribal consultation for the Project have been received. In addition, the NAHC SLF results confirmed there were no recorded tribal cultural resources in the Project area.
While it is unlikely that human resources would be uncovered during construction activities associated with this Project, discovery of human remains on-site would result in the ceasing of all construction activities and the contacting of the Fresno County Coroner. If the Coroner determines that the remains are that of tribal descent, they would contact the NAHC to determine the most likely descendant. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local requirements in relation to the uncover of human remains. Any impacts would be considered less than significant.
74 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not warranted for impacts related to Tribal Cultural Resources.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – 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 effect?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry
and multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the
waste water 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?
X
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?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and
local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
X
75 Baseline Conditions
The Project site is currently served by the City of Fresno for water delivery, wastewater treatment, and solid waste disposal. Stormwater management is managed by FMFCD.
Electricity and natural gas services are by provided by PG&E.
DISCUSSION
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?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project treatment site is adjacent to a developed public street, where utilities are present. The Project itself would include approximately 1,400 linear feet (LF) of 12-inch diameter raw water main between the existing PS 102 well site and the proposed treatment site, PS 102A (1,200 gpm flow rate) to tie into the existing PS 102 well head piping. The pipeline connection would be withing existing road right of way and is a short distance. There is no need for relocation or construction of new electric power, natural gas, telecommunication facilities . Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
No Impact. The Project itself is a n existing groundwater supply well PS102 with proposed treatment facilities to mitigate TCP concentrations in the City’s water supply system. There would be no impacts from the Project on water supplies.
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?
Less than Significant Impact. Wastewater generated by the Project would be delivered through a new connection to the existing sewer system. The Department of Public Utilities reviewed the Project and confirmed that sanitary sewer facilities are available to provide service to the Project, subject to standard connection requirements. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
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?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would likely generate minimal solid waste from construction activities. Solid waste generated during operations could include spent treatment chemicals and byproducts, however these would not be generated in large quantities. Impacts would be less than significant 76 e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than Significant Impact. Despite the Project’s unlikelihood of generating significant quantities of solid waste, the Project would be required to comply with all regulations applicable to solid waste generation for public utility projects. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not warranted for impacts related to Utilities and Service Systems.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. WILDFIRE – 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?
X
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?
X
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?
X
d) Expose people or st ructures to
significant risks, including
downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result
of runoff, post-fire slope instability,
or drainage changes?
X
77 Baseline Conditions
The Project site is located in the southeastern portion of the City of Fresno. The Project is in an urbanized setting within and surrounded by residential and light industrial uses.
The Project site would be served by the City of Fresno for its fire protection needs. In addition, the Project site is not located in or near land classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The nearest State Responsibility Area (SRA) is located approximately 10.5 miles northeast near Kirkman Hill and the nearest Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone is located approximately 34 miles east near Miramonte, CA.
DISCUSSION
Would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The Project is located in an area of low wildfire risk, and is not located in a SRA nor near land classified by either Cal Fire or the City of Fresno as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. As mentioned above, the nearest SRA is approximately
10.5 miles northeast of the Project site. Additionally, the site is approximately 34 miles from the nearest Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone classification. As the Project is not subject to wildfire risks, further analysis is not warranted, thus no impacts would occur.
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?
No Impact. As described above, the Project is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire ha zard severity zones; therefore there would be no impact.
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?
No Impact. As described above, the Project is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones; therefore there would be no impact.
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
No Impact. Due to the topography of the Project site, its distal location to an SRA and a very high fire hazard severity zone, it is not subject to the risk of downslope or 78 downstream flooding or landslides as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not warranted for impacts related to Wildfire.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the
potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
X
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)?
X
c) Does the project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly
or indirectly?
X
DISCUSSION
79 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 an endangered, rare, or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less than Significant Impact. As described in the Biological Resources section, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-3, the Project would not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the env ironment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish and wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact.
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.)
Less than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i) states that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumula tive impact of a project is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects. The Project would construct water treatment facilities and ancillary treatment equipment. Implementation of the Project would continue to be consistent with the site’s intended use. Therefore, im plementation of the Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts and all potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant through the implementation of basic regulatory requirements incorporated into Project design.
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impact. The analysis conducted in this Initial Study results in a determination that the Project would have a less than a substantial adverse effect on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
1 Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program for
Wellhead Treatment Improvements at Pump Station 102A
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was formulated based upon the findings of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the proposed Wellhead Treatment Improvements at Pump Station 102A (project). The MMRP, which is found in Table A of this section, lists mitigation measures recommended in the IS/MND for the proposed project and identifies mitigation monitoring requirements.
The MMRP must be adopted when the City Council makes a final decision on the proposed project.
This MMRP has been prepared to comply with the requirements of State law (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). State law requires the adoption of an MMRP when mitigation measures are required to avoid significant impacts. This requirement facilitates implementation of all mitigation measures adopted through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. The MMRP is intended to ensure compliance during implementation of the project.
The MMRP is organized in a matrix format. The firs t column identifies the mitigation measure. The second column, entitled “Mitigation Responsibility,” refers to the party responsible for implementing the mitigation measure. The third column, entitled “Monitoring/Reporting Agency,” refers to the agency responsible for oversight or ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented. The fourth column, entitled “Monitoring Schedule,” refers to when monitoring will occur to ensure that the mitigating action is completed. The fifth column, entitled “Verificati on,” will be initialed and dated by the individual designated to verify adherence to the project specific mitigation. 2 Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MEASURE
Timing for
Mitigation
Measure
Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Agency
Verification
(Initials and
Date)
I. AESTHETICS
There are no significant impacts to Aesthetics.
II. AGRICULTURE
There are no significant impacts to Energy.
III. AIR QUALITY
AIR-1: Diesel-powered off -road construction equipment shall be equipped with EPA Tier 4 Final engines or better.
Prior to
commencement of
construction
activities
City of Fresno City of Fresno
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIO-1: The Project’s construction activities will occur, if feasible, between September 16 and January 31 (outside of nesting bird season) in an effort to avoid impacts to nesting birds.
Prior to
commencement of
construction
activities
City of Fresno City of Fresno
BIO-2: If activities must occur within nesting bird season (February 1 to September 15), a qualified biologist will conduct a pre-construction survey for all nesting birds within the Project boundary and an additional 50 feet surrounding the Project, no more than 7 days prior to the start of construction. All raptor nests would be considered “active” upon the nest-building stage.
If construction
commences
between February 1
and September 15
City of Fresno City of Fresno
BIO-3: On discovery of any active nests or breeding colonies near work areas, the biologist will determine appropriate construction setback distances based on applicable CDFW and/or USFWS guidelines and/or the biology of the species in question. Construction buffers will be identified with flagging, fencing, or other easily visible means, and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the nestlings have fledged and are no longer dependent on the nest.
Upon discovery of
active nests or
breeding colonies
near work areas
City of Fresno City of Fresno
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
CUL-1: If previously unknown resources are encountered before or during grading activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified historical resources specialist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further Upon discovery of
previously-unknown
cultural resources
City of Fresno City of Fresno
3 Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MEASURE
Timing for
Mitigation
Measure
Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Agency
Verification
(Initials and
Date)
study. The qualified historical resources specialist shall make recommendations to the City on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. If the resources are determined to be unique historical resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency.
Appropriate measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any historical artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City-approved institution or person who is capable of providing long-term preservation to allow future scientific study.
CUL-2: In the event that human remains are unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, all activity shall cease immediately. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(a). If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall within 24 hours notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then contact the most likely descendent of the deceased Native American, who shall then serve as the consultant on how to proceed with the remains. Pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(b), upon the discovery of Native American remains, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking Upon discovery of
human remains City of Fresno City of Fresno
4 Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MEASURE
Timing for
Mitigation
Measure
Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Agency
Verification
(Initials and
Date)
into account the possibility of multiple human remains. The landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants' preferences for treatment.
VI. ENERGY
There are no significant impacts to Energy.
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
There are no significant impacts to Geology and Soils.
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
There are no significant impacts to Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
There are no significant impacts to Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
There are no significant impacts to Hydrology and Water Quality.
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
There are no significant impacts to Land Use and Planning.
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
There are no significant impacts to Mineral Resources.
XIII. NOISE
There are no significant impacts to Noise.
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
There are no significant impacts to Population and Housing.
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
There are no significant impacts to Public Services.
XVI. RECREATION
There are no significant impacts to Recreation.
XVII. TRANSPORTATION
There are no significant impacts to Transportation.
XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
5 Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MEASURE
Timing for
Mitigation
Measure
Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Agency
Verification
(Initials and
Date)
There are no significant impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources.
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
There are no significant impacts to Utilities and Service Systems.
XX. WILDFIRE
There are no significant impacts to Wildfire.
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
See BIO-1 above. Prior to
commencement of
construction
activities
City of Fresno City of Fresno
See BIO-2 above. If construction
commences
between February 1
and September 15
City of Fresno City of Fresno
See BIO-3 above. Upon discovery of
active nests or
breeding colonies
near work areas
City of Fresno City of Fresno
1 References
Calfornia Department of Conservation. 2019. Important Farmland Categories. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Important-Farmland- Categories.aspx.
California Air Resources Board. 2014. "First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan." May. Accessed October 31, 2022.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first _update_climate_change_scoping_plan.pdf.
—. n.d. iADAM: Air Quality Data Statistics. Accessed October 28, 2022. https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php.
California Department of Conservation. n.d. California Import ant Farmland Finder.
Accessed October 28, 2022. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. —. 1999. CGS Information Warehouse. April 1. Accessed October 31, 2022. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/mlc/.
California Department of Co nservation. n.d. "Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation." Accessed October 31, 2022.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/.
—. 2015. Fault Activity Map of California. Accessed October 31, 2022. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/.
California Department of Conservation. 1988. "Special Report 158, Mineral Land Classification:Aggregate Materials in the Fresno Production -Consumption Region." Accessed October 31, 2022.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=ml c.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2022. California Natural Diversity Database. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. n.d. California State Responsibility Areas. Accessed October 31, 2022.
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=5ac1dae3cb2544629 a845d9a19e83991.
California Department of Forestry and FIre Protection. n.d. FHSZ Viewer. Accessed October 31, 2022. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2020. California Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.
California Department of Transportation. n.d. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Accessed October 28, 2022.
2 https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d80 7c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa.
California Department of Water Resources. 2022. Water Management Planning Tool. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/boundaries/.
Central California Food Bank. 2022. Central California Food Bank. Accessed May 2022. https://ccfoodbank.org/about-us/.
City of Fresno. 2014. "Fresno General Plan." Fresno. Accessed October 28, 2022. https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp-
content/uploads/sites/10/2019/07/ConsolidatedGP6182020.pdf. —. 2014. "Fresno General Plan, Mobility and Transportation Element." Accessed October 31, 2022. https://cityoffresno.wpenginepowered.com/darm/wp - content/uploads/sites/10/2019/07/General-Plan-4-Mobility-and-Transportation-7-
19.pdf.
—. 2014. "Fresno General Plan, Parks, Open Space, and Schools Element." Accessed October 31, 2022. https://cityoffresno.wpenginepowered.com/darm/wp - content/uploads/sites/10/2019/07/General-Plan-5-Parks-Open-Space-and- Schools-7-19.pdf.
Federal Transit Administration. 2018. "Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual." September. Accessed January 3, 2023.
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta- report-no-0123_0.pdf.
Fresno County General Plan Background Report. 2000. Fresno County General Plan Background Report. October 3. Accessed October 31, 2022. https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=8398.
LSA. 2020. "Fresno General Plan Public Review Draft Program Environmental Impac t Report." Fresno. Accessed October 31, 2022. https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp - content/uploads/sites/10/2020/03/Fresno-GP-Public-Review-Draft-Program- EIR.pdf.
National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2022. websoilsurvey. Accessed October 31, 2022.
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
State of California . 2020. State Water Resources Control Board Geo Tracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.
United States Census Bureau. 2021. Quick Facts, Fresno city, California. Accessed October 31, 2022. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fresnocitycalifornia. 3 United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2022. United States Environmental Protection Agency WATERS GeoViewer. https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/waters- geoviewer.
United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) . 2020. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home.
United States Fish & Wildlfie Service. 2021. National Wetlands Inventory. https://www.fws.gov/program/national-wetlands-inventory.
United States Fish & Wildlife Service. 2022. Environmental Conservation Online System. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/.
United States Geological Survey. 2020. United States Geological Survey. Accessed October 31, 2022. https://edits.nationalmap.gov/wbd -app/?loc=- 119.5487,36.6160,13.
A-1
Appendix A: CalEEMod Output Files
PS 102A
Fresno County, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use -
Construction Phase -
Architectural Coating - No parking lot striping
Area Coating - No parking lot striping
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses
Size
Metric
Lot Acreage
Floor Surface Area
Population
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces
14.00 1000sqft
0.32 14,000.00
0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
3 Wind Speed (m/s)
Precipitation Freq (Days)
2.2 45
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
2025
Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.98
0.033
CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.004
N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Table Name
Column Name
Default Value
New Value
tblArchitecturalCoating
ConstArea_Parking
840.00
0.00 tblAreaCoating
Area_Parking
840
0 tblConstructionPhase
PhaseEndDate
6/21/2023
6/7/2023
tblConstructionPhase
PhaseEndDate
6/7/2023
5/24/2023
tblConstructionPhase
PhaseEndDate
1/18/2023
1/4/2023
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 1/3/2023 1:24 PM
PS 102A - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblConstructionPhase
PhaseEndDate
6/14/2023
5/31/2023
tblConstructionPhase
PhaseEndDate
1/16/2023
1/2/2023
tblConstructionPhase
PhaseStartDate
6/15/2023
6/1/2023
tblConstructionPhase
PhaseStartDate
1/19/2023
1/5/2023
tblConstructionPhase
PhaseStartDate
1/17/2023
1/3/2023
tblConstructionPhase
PhaseStartDate
6/8/2023
5/25/2023
tblConstructionPhase
PhaseStartDate
1/14/2023
1/1/2023
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 1/3/2023 1:24 PM
PS 102A - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
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
2023
0.0360
0.3563
0.3942
6.7000e-
004
9.1000e-
003
0.0174
0.0265
3.5500e-
003
0.0161
0.0196
0.0000
58.9320
58.9320
0.0175
3.5000e-
004
59.4763
Maximum
0.0360
0.3563
0.3942
6.7000e-
004
9.1000e-
003
0.0174
0.0265
3.5500e-
003
0.0161
0.0196
0.0000
58.9320
58.9320
0.0175
3.5000e-
004
59.4763
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
2023
0.0360
0.3563
0.3942
6.7000e-
004
9.1000e-
003
0.0174
0.0265
3.5500e-
003
0.0161
0.0196
0.0000
58.9319
58.9319
0.0175
3.5000e-
004
59.4763
Maximum
0.0360
0.3563
0.3942
6.7000e-
004
9.1000e-
003
0.0174
0.0265
3.5500e-
003
0.0161
0.0196
0.0000
58.9319
58.9319
0.0175
3.5000e-
004
59.4763
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
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.2020.4.0
Date: 1/3/2023 1:24 PM
PS 102A - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
Quarter
Start Date
End Date
Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
1 1-1-2023
3-31-2023
0.2332
0.2332
2 4-1-2023
6-30-2023
0.1576
0.1576
Highest
0.2332
0.2332
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
9.2000e-
004
0.0000
1.3000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2.5000e-
004
2.5000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000
2.7000e-
004
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
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Water
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Total
9.2000e-
004
0.0000
1.3000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2.5000e-
004
2.5000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000
2.7000e-
004
Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 1/3/2023 1:24 PM
PS 102A - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
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
9.2000e-
004
0.0000
1.3000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2.5000e-
004
2.5000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000
2.7000e-
004
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
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Water
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Total
9.2000e-
004
0.0000
1.3000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2.5000e-
004
2.5000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000
2.7000e-
004
Mitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name
Phase Type
Start Date
End Date
Num Days
Week
Num Days
Phase Description
1 Site Preparation
Site Preparation
1/1/2023
1/2/2023
5 1
2 Grading
Grading
1/3/2023
1/4/2023
5 2
3 Building Construction
Building Construction
1/5/2023
5/24/2023
5 100
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.2020.4.0
Date: 1/3/2023 1:24 PM
PS 102A - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
4 Paving
Paving
5/25/2023
5/31/2023
5 5
5 Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating
6/1/2023
6/7/2023
5 5
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment Type
Amount
Usage Hours
Horse Power
Load Factor
Architectural Coating
Air Compressors
1 6.00
78 0.48
Paving
Cement and Mortar Mixers
4 6.00
9 0.56
Building Construction
Cranes
1 4.00
231
0.29 Building Construction
Forklifts
2 6.00
89 0.20
Grading
Graders
1 6.00
187
0.41 Site Preparation
Graders
1 8.00
187
0.41 Paving
Pavers
1 7.00
130
0.42 Paving
Rollers
1 7.00
80 0.38
Grading
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 6.00
247
0.40 Building Construction
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
2 8.00
97 0.37
Grading
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1 7.00
97 0.37
Paving
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1 7.00
97 0.37
Site Preparation
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1 8.00
97 0.37
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
Site Preparation
2 5.00
0.00 0.00
10.80 7.30
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
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): 0.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 1.5
Acres of Paving: 0.32
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 1/3/2023 1:24 PM
PS 102A - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.2 Site Preparation - 2023
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
2.7000e-
004
0.0000
2.7000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000
3.0000e-
005
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Off-Road
2.7000e-
004
3.0900e-
003
1.9600e-
003
0.0000
1.1000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
1.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
004
0.0000
0.4275
0.4275
1.4000e-
004
0.0000
0.4309
Total
2.7000e-
004
3.0900e-
003
1.9600e-
003
0.0000
2.7000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
3.8000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
0.0000
0.4275
0.4275
1.4000e-
004
0.0000
0.4309
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Grading
3 8.00
0.00 0.00
10.80 7.30
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Building Construction
5 6.00
2.00 0.00
10.80 7.30
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Paving
7 18.00
0.00 0.00
10.80 7.30
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Architectural Coating
1 1.00
0.00 0.00
10.80 7.30
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 1/3/2023 1:24 PM
PS 102A - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.2 Site Preparation - 2023
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
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
0.0000
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000
1.0000e-
005
0.0000
0.0157
0.0157
0.0000
0.0000
0.0159
Total
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
0.0000
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000
1.0000e-
005
0.0000
0.0157
0.0157
0.0000
0.0000
0.0159
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
2.7000e-
004
0.0000
2.7000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000
3.0000e-
005
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Off-Road
2.7000e-
004
3.0900e-
003
1.9600e-
003
0.0000
1.1000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
1.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
004
0.0000
0.4275
0.4275
1.4000e-
004
0.0000
0.4309
Total
2.7000e-
004
3.0900e-
003
1.9600e-
003
0.0000
2.7000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
3.8000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
0.0000
0.4275
0.4275
1.4000e-
004
0.0000
0.4309
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 1/3/2023 1:24 PM
PS 102A - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.2 Site Preparation - 2023
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
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
0.0000
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000
1.0000e-
005
0.0000
0.0157
0.0157
0.0000
0.0000
0.0159
Total
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
0.0000
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000
1.0000e-
005
0.0000
0.0157
0.0157
0.0000
0.0000
0.0159
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Grading - 2023
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
5.3100e-
003
0.0000
5.3100e-
003
2.5700e-
003
0.0000
2.5700e-
003
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Off-Road
9.3000e-
004
0.0102
5.5500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
004
4.2000e-
004
3.9000e-
004
3.9000e-
004
0.0000
1.2381
1.2381
4.0000e-
004
0.0000
1.2481
Total
9.3000e-
004
0.0102
5.5500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
5.3100e-
003
4.2000e-
004
5.7300e-
003
2.5700e-
003
3.9000e-
004
2.9600e-
003
0.0000
1.2381
1.2381
4.0000e-
004
0.0000
1.2481
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 1/3/2023 1:24 PM
PS 102A - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.3 Grading - 2023
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
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
1.9000e-
004
0.0000
6.0000e-
005
0.0000
6.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
0.0503
0.0503
0.0000
0.0000
0.0508
Total
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
1.9000e-
004
0.0000
6.0000e-
005
0.0000
6.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
0.0503
0.0503
0.0000
0.0000
0.0508
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
5.3100e-
003
0.0000
5.3100e-
003
2.5700e-
003
0.0000
2.5700e-
003
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Off-Road
9.3000e-
004
0.0102
5.5500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
004
4.2000e-
004
3.9000e-
004
3.9000e-
004
0.0000
1.2381
1.2381
4.0000e-
004
0.0000
1.2481
Total
9.3000e-
004
0.0102
5.5500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
5.3100e-
003
4.2000e-
004
5.7300e-
003
2.5700e-
003
3.9000e-
004
2.9600e-
003
0.0000
1.2381
1.2381
4.0000e-
004
0.0000
1.2481
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 1/3/2023 1:24 PM
PS 102A - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.3 Grading - 2023
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
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
1.9000e-
004
0.0000
6.0000e-
005
0.0000
6.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
0.0503
0.0503
0.0000
0.0000
0.0508
Total
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
1.9000e-
004
0.0000
6.0000e-
005
0.0000
6.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
0.0503
0.0503
0.0000
0.0000
0.0508
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Building Construction - 2023
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
0.0316
0.3209
0.3549
5.7000e-
004
0.0160
0.0160
0.0147
0.0147
0.0000
50.1042
50.1042
0.0162
0.0000
50.5093
Total
0.0316
0.3209
0.3549
5.7000e-
004
0.0160
0.0160
0.0147
0.0147
0.0000
50.1042
50.1042
0.0162
0.0000
50.5093
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 1/3/2023 1:24 PM
PS 102A - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.4 Building Construction - 2023
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
1.1000e-
004
4.3900e-
003
1.3200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
6.6000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
6.9000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
2.2000e-
004
0.0000
1.9233
1.9233
1.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
2.0098
Worker
9.3000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
7.0700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.4000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
2.4100e-
003
6.4000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
6.5000e-
004
0.0000
1.8862
1.8862
6.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
1.9039
Total
1.0400e-
003
4.9900e-
003
8.3900e-
003
4.0000e-
005
3.0600e-
003
4.0000e-
005
3.1000e-
003
8.3000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
8.7000e-
004
0.0000
3.8094
3.8094
7.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
3.9137
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
0.0316
0.3209
0.3549
5.7000e-
004
0.0160
0.0160
0.0147
0.0147
0.0000
50.1042
50.1042
0.0162
0.0000
50.5093
Total
0.0316
0.3209
0.3549
5.7000e-
004
0.0160
0.0160
0.0147
0.0147
0.0000
50.1042
50.1042
0.0162
0.0000
50.5093
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 1/3/2023 1:24 PM
PS 102A - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.4 Building Construction - 2023
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
1.1000e-
004
4.3900e-
003
1.3200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
6.6000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
6.9000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
2.2000e-
004
0.0000
1.9233
1.9233
1.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
2.0098
Worker
9.3000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
7.0700e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.4000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
2.4100e-
003
6.4000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
6.5000e-
004
0.0000
1.8862
1.8862
6.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
1.9039
Total
1.0400e-
003
4.9900e-
003
8.3900e-
003
4.0000e-
005
3.0600e-
003
4.0000e-
005
3.1000e-
003
8.3000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
8.7000e-
004
0.0000
3.8094
3.8094
7.0000e-
005
3.4000e-
004
3.9137
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Paving - 2023
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
1.5300e-
003
0.0138
0.0176
3.0000e-
005
6.6000e-
004
6.6000e-
004
6.2000e-
004
6.2000e-
004
0.0000
2.3498
2.3498
6.8000e-
004
0.0000
2.3669
Paving
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Total
1.5300e-
003
0.0138
0.0176
3.0000e-
005
6.6000e-
004
6.6000e-
004
6.2000e-
004
6.2000e-
004
0.0000
2.3498
2.3498
6.8000e-
004
0.0000
2.3669
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 1/3/2023 1:24 PM
PS 102A - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.5 Paving - 2023
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
1.4000e-
004
9.0000e-
005
1.0600e-
003
0.0000
3.6000e-
004
0.0000
3.6000e-
004
1.0000e-
004
0.0000
1.0000e-
004
0.0000
0.2829
0.2829
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.2856
Total
1.4000e-
004
9.0000e-
005
1.0600e-
003
0.0000
3.6000e-
004
0.0000
3.6000e-
004
1.0000e-
004
0.0000
1.0000e-
004
0.0000
0.2829
0.2829
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.2856
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
1.5300e-
003
0.0138
0.0176
3.0000e-
005
6.6000e-
004
6.6000e-
004
6.2000e-
004
6.2000e-
004
0.0000
2.3498
2.3498
6.8000e-
004
0.0000
2.3669
Paving
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Total
1.5300e-
003
0.0138
0.0176
3.0000e-
005
6.6000e-
004
6.6000e-
004
6.2000e-
004
6.2000e-
004
0.0000
2.3498
2.3498
6.8000e-
004
0.0000
2.3669
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 1/3/2023 1:24 PM
PS 102A - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.5 Paving - 2023
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
1.4000e-
004
9.0000e-
005
1.0600e-
003
0.0000
3.6000e-
004
0.0000
3.6000e-
004
1.0000e-
004
0.0000
1.0000e-
004
0.0000
0.2829
0.2829
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.2856
Total
1.4000e-
004
9.0000e-
005
1.0600e-
003
0.0000
3.6000e-
004
0.0000
3.6000e-
004
1.0000e-
004
0.0000
1.0000e-
004
0.0000
0.2829
0.2829
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.2856
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023
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
Archit. Coating
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Off-Road
4.8000e-
004
3.2600e-
003
4.5300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.8000e-
004
1.8000e-
004
1.8000e-
004
1.8000e-
004
0.0000
0.6383
0.6383
4.0000e-
005
0.0000
0.6393
Total
4.8000e-
004
3.2600e-
003
4.5300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.8000e-
004
1.8000e-
004
1.8000e-
004
1.8000e-
004
0.0000
0.6383
0.6383
4.0000e-
005
0.0000
0.6393
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 1/3/2023 1:24 PM
PS 102A - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023
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
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
0.0000
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000
1.0000e-
005
0.0000
0.0157
0.0157
0.0000
0.0000
0.0159
Total
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
0.0000
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000
1.0000e-
005
0.0000
0.0157
0.0157
0.0000
0.0000
0.0159
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
Archit. Coating
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Off-Road
4.8000e-
004
3.2600e-
003
4.5300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.8000e-
004
1.8000e-
004
1.8000e-
004
1.8000e-
004
0.0000
0.6383
0.6383
4.0000e-
005
0.0000
0.6393
Total
4.8000e-
004
3.2600e-
003
4.5300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.8000e-
004
1.8000e-
004
1.8000e-
004
1.8000e-
004
0.0000
0.6383
0.6383
4.0000e-
005
0.0000
0.6393
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 1/3/2023 1:24 PM
PS 102A - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023
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
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
0.0000
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000
1.0000e-
005
0.0000
0.0157
0.0157
0.0000
0.0000
0.0159
Total
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
0.0000
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000
1.0000e-
005
0.0000
0.0157
0.0157
0.0000
0.0000
0.0159
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 1/3/2023 1:24 PM
PS 102A - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
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
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
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
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces
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
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces
9.50 7.30
7.30 0.00
0.00 0.00
0 0
0 4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use
LDA
LDT1
LDT2
MDV
LHD1
LHD2
MHD
HHD
OBUS
UBUS
MCY
SBUS
MH
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces
0.521458
0.053308
0.175656
0.151963
0.025001
0.006656
0.014407
0.022718
0.000702
0.000287
0.023515
0.001463
0.002865
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 1/3/2023 1:24 PM
PS 102A - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
5.0 Energy Detail
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
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 1/3/2023 1:24 PM
PS 102A - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
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
Other Non-
Asphalt Surfaces
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
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
Other Non-
Asphalt Surfaces
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
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 1/3/2023 1:24 PM
PS 102A - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
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
Other Non-
Asphalt Surfaces
0 0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Total
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kWh/yr
MT/yr
Other Non-
Asphalt Surfaces
0 0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Total
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 1/3/2023 1:24 PM
PS 102A - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
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
9.2000e-
004
0.0000
1.3000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2.5000e-
004
2.5000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000
2.7000e-
004
Unmitigated
9.2000e-
004
0.0000
1.3000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2.5000e-
004
2.5000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000
2.7000e-
004
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
9.0000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Landscaping
1.0000e-
005
0.0000
1.3000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2.5000e-
004
2.5000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000
2.7000e-
004
Total
9.1000e-
004
0.0000
1.3000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2.5000e-
004
2.5000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000
2.7000e-
004
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 1/3/2023 1:24 PM
PS 102A - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
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
9.0000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Landscaping
1.0000e-
005
0.0000
1.3000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2.5000e-
004
2.5000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000
2.7000e-
004
Total
9.1000e-
004
0.0000
1.3000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2.5000e-
004
2.5000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000
2.7000e-
004
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 1/3/2023 1:24 PM
PS 102A - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
MT/yr
Mitigated
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Unmitigated
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
Mgal
MT/yr
Other Non-
Asphalt Surfaces
0 / 0
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Total
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 1/3/2023 1:24 PM
PS 102A - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
Mgal
MT/yr
Other Non-
Asphalt Surfaces
0 / 0
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Total
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Mitigated
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Unmitigated
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 1/3/2023 1:24 PM
PS 102A - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
tons
MT/yr
Other Non-
Asphalt Surfaces
0 0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Total
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
tons
MT/yr
Other Non-
Asphalt Surfaces
0 0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Total
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type
Number
Hours/Day
Days/Year
Horse Power
Load Factor
Fuel Type
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 1/3/2023 1:24 PM
PS 102A - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
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.2020.4.0
Date: 1/3/2023 1:24 PM
PS 102A - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
B-1
Appendix B: Biological Review Memo
455 W Fir Avenue
Clovis, CA 93611-0242
Tel: (559) 449-2700
Fax: (559) 449-2715
www.provostandpritchard.com
Engineering Surveying Planning Environmental GIS Construction Services Hydrogeology Consulting Clovis Bakersfield Visalia Modesto Los Banos Chico • Sacramento Memorandum
To: City of Fresno
From: Provost & Pritchard: Mary Beth Bourne, Associate Biologist Subject: Biological Review of the proposed City of Fresno 102A Wellhead Treatment Project # 1561-22013 TK4
Date: December 27, 2022
Biological Review
The 102A Wellhead Treatment Project ( Project) is proposed to mitigate water quality contamination from 1,2,3-Trichloropropane identified in well 102A (Well) owned and operated by the City of Fresno (City). The well is located west of N orth Fowler Avenue and south o f East Makenzie Avenue. The Project includes approximately 1,400 linear feet of pipeline within the existing road right -of-way, north on N orth Fowler Avenue and east of E ast Grant Avenue to a vacant triangular section of land where the proposed treatment facilities will be located. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) is approximately 3.2 acres and includes the Project areas and an additional 50-foot survey buffer (see Attachment A).
Topography
The APE lies within the Central Valley which is bordered by the Sierra Nevada Mountain Ranges to the east, the Coast Ranges to the west, the Klamath Mountains and Cascade Range to the north, and the Transverse Ranges and Mojave Desert to the south. The topography within the APE is relatively flat with elevations ranging from approximately 320 to 325 feet above mean sea level.
Climate
Like most of California, the APE experiences a M editerranean climate. Warm, dry summers are followed by cool, moist winters. Summer temperatures range between 80 - and 90 -degrees Fahrenheit (°F), but often exceeds 90 °F. Winter minimum temperatures are near 40 °F. The average annual precipitation is appr oximately 13 inches, falling primarily from October to April (WeatherSpark, 2022).
Waters
A watershed is the topographic region in which upland water collects and drains into a stream, river, or lake and can consist of many smaller subwatersheds. The APE l ies within the Fancher Creek-Fancher Creek Canal watershed - Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 180300090 3; and the Fancher Creek Canal subwatershed - HUC 180300090303.
The nearest surface water is the Fancher Creek Canal approximately 0.2 miles directly south of the APE. This canal is a channelized portion of Fancher Creek . The Fancher Creek-Fancher Creek Canal watershed includes Fancher Creek origins in the Sierra Nevada foothills, through to the valley floor where it is eventually channelized before crossing California State Route 180. The channelized Fancher Creek Canal includes upstream connections to Mud Creek as well as Hog Creek before they join Fancher Creek. The Fancher Creek Canal continues flowing west, To City of Fresno December 16, 2022
Biological Review of the 102A Wellhead Treatment Project Page 2 of 11 eventually splitting into Braly Canal, Central Canal, and Washington Canal west of Clovis Avenue.
None of these canals appear to have a downstream connection to a known Waters of the United States, each terminating in the agricultural area east of California State Route 145.
Soils
Two soil mapping units representing two soil types were identified within the APE. The soils are displayed with their core properties in the table below, according to the Major Land Resource Area of California 19 map area. These soils are commonly used for agriculture.
Table 1. List of Soils Located Onsite and Their Basic Properties Soil Soil Map Unit Percent
of APE
Hydric
Unit
Hydric
Minor
Units
Drainage Permeability Runoff
Atwater Sandy loam, 0 to
3 percent slopes 34.6% No No Well drained
Moderately
rapid
permeability
Very low
runoff
Ramona Loam 65.4% No No Well drained
Moderately
slow
permeability
Low runoff
None of the major or minor soils units were identified as hydric. Hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions such that under sufficiently wet conditions, hydrophytic vegetation can be supported.
The full soil report can be found in Attachment B at the end of this document.
Biotic Habitat
The APE is surrounded by residential neighborhoods to the south and west, and ruderal/industrial areas to the north and east. The alignments are proposed in the right-of-way of existing, paved roads, and the proposed treatment facility is located on a heavily disturbed, fallow parcel. The existing wellsite is surrounded by residential houses. Five trees are present in aerial imagery located within the Fowler Ave median and the entrance of the wellsite. California State Route 180 is located less than 0.2 miles northeast of the APE. The Fancher Creek Business Park is located directly east of the Project.
Methodology
A thorough search of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) , California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), iNaturalist, California Herps, and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) were reviewed for potential special status plant and animal species that may be found in and around the APE. The CNDDB search included the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) areas encompassing the Malaga 7.5-minute quadrangle that contain s the APE in its entirety, and for the eight surrounding quadrangles: Clovis, Fresno South, Fresno North, Conejo, Selma, Caruthers, Round Mountain, and Sanger. The full CNDDB and IPaC species list can be found in Attachment C and Attachment D at the end of this document. No field survey was conducted. Viewing of the APE was achieved utilizing satellite and historical imagery.
Special Status Species
There are 20 special status animal species and 12 special status plant species with recorded observations within the 9-quad search. Special status species found within three miles of the APE, as well as those provided by the IPaC search, include 16 animal species and three plant species. These species, and their potential to occur within the APE, are listed in Table 2 and Table 3 below.
To City of Fresno December 16, 2022
Biological Review of the 102A Wellhead Treatment Project Page 3 of 11 Table 2. List of Special Status Animals with Potential to Occur Onsite and/or in the Vicinity.
Species Status Habitat Occurrence within Project Site
American badger
(Taxidea taxus) CSC
Grasslands, savannas, and mountain
meadows near timberline are
preferred. Most abundant in drier
open spaces of shrub and grassland.
Burrows in soil.
Absent. The APE is highly disturbed,
consisting primarily of paved roads,
and is therefore unsuitable for
foraging or denning. The surrounding
area is equally disturbed, consisting of
residential neighborhoods and
frequently disced parcels.
Burrowing Owl
(Athene cunicularia) CSC
Resides in open, dry annual or
perennial grasslands, deserts, and
scrublands with low growing
vegetation. Nests underground in
existing burrows created by mammals,
most often ground squirrels.
Unlikely. The only potentially suitable
habitat within and adjacent to the
APE are the frequently disced, ruderal
parcels. Due to frequent ground
disturbance, ground squirrel burrows
cannot persist, which are required by
this species.
California Condor
(Gymnogyps
californianus)
FE, CE,
CFP
Typically nests in cavities in canyon or
cliff faces but has also been recorded
nesting in giant sequoias in Tulare
County. Requires vast expanse of
open savannah, grassland, and/or
foothill chaparral in mountain ranges
of moderate altitude. Forages up to
100 miles from roost/nest site.
Absent. The APE is outside the
current known range of this species.
California glossy
snake
(Arizona elegans
occidentalis)
CSC
Inhabits arid scrub, rocky washes,
grasslands, and chaparral. Prefers open
areas with loose soil for easy
burrowing.
Absent. The APE is outside the
current known range for this species
and suitable habitat for this species is
absent.
California tiger
salamander
(Ambystoma
californiense)
FT, CT,
CWL
Requires vernal pools or seasonal
ponds for breeding and small mammal
burrows for aestivation. Generally
found in grassland and oak savannah
plant communities in central
California from sea level to 1500 feet
in elevation.
Absent. Habitats required by this
species, including vernal pools, are
absent from the APE and surrounding
area. Upland habitat is less than
marginal for this species within the
APE due to frequent ground
disturbance.
Coast horned lizard
(Phrynosoma
blainvillii)
CSC
Found in grasslands, coniferous
forests, woodlands, and chaparral,
primarily in open areas with patches of
loose, sandy soil and low-lying
vegetation in valleys, foothills, and
semi-arid mountains. Frequently
found near ant hills and along dirt
roads in lowlands along sandy washes
with scattered shrubs.
Absent. Due to frequent ground
disturbance and paved roads, the APE
is unsuitable for this species. The only
regional recorded observation of this
species is from a historical record
dated 1893.
Crotch bumble bee
(Bombus crotchii) CCE
Occurs throughout coastal California,
as well as east to the Sierra-Cascade
crest, and south into Mexico. Food
plant genera include Antirrhinum,
Phacelia, Clarkia, Dendromecon,
Eschscholzia, and Eriogonum.
Unlikely. Paved roads and frequent
discing of the ruderal parcels likely
prevents forage required by this
species to persist. The only two
regional recorded observations of this
species occurred more than 100 years
ago.
Delta smelt
(Hypomesus
transpacificus)
FT, CE
This pelagic and euryhaline species is
Endemic to the Sacramento-San
Joaquin River Delta, upstream
through Contra Costa, Sacramento,
San Joaquin, and Solano Counties.
Absent. Suitable perennial aquatic
habitat for this species is absent from
the APE and surrounding lands.
To City of Fresno December 16, 2022
Biological Review of the 102A Wellhead Treatment Project Page 4 of 11 Species Status Habitat Occurrence within Project Site
Fresno kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys
nitratoides exilis)
FE, CE
An inhabitant of alkali sinks open
grassland environments in western
Fresno County. Prefers bare, alkaline,
clay-based soils subject to seasonal
inundation with more friable soil
mounds around shrubs and grasses.
Absent. The only regional recorded
observation of this species is listed as
“Extirpated” on CNDDB. Frequent
ground disturbance and paved roads
within the APE are unsuitable for this
species.
Least Bell’s Vireo
(Vireo bellii pusillus) FE, CE
This migratory species breeds in
southern California. Breeding habitat
consists of dense, low, shrubby,
riparian vegetation in the vicinity of
water or dry river bottoms. By the
early 1980s, this species was extirpated
from most of its historic range in
California, including the Central
Valley. This species now occurs
exclusively along the coast of southern
California (USFWS, 1998).
Absent. This species is considered
extirpated from the Central valley.
Monarch Butterfly
(Danaus plexippus) FC
Roosts located in wind-protected tree
groves (eucalyptus, Monterey pine,
cypress), with nectar and water
sources nearby. Larval host plants
consist of milkweeds (Asclepias sp.).
Winter roost sites extend along the
coast from northern Mendocino to
Baja California, Mexico.
Unlikely. Paved roads and frequent
discing of the ruderal parcels likely
prevents forage required by this
species to persist. This species would
not be expected to lay eggs within the
AEP due to location within its
migratory pathway.
Northern California
legless lizard
(Anniella pulchra)
CSC
Found primarily underground,
burrowing in loose, sandy soil.
Forages in loose soil and leaf litter
during the day. Occasionally observed
on the surface at dusk and night.
Absent. Paved roads and frequent
ground disturbance within the APE
are unsuitable for this species. The
only regional recorded observation of
this species occurred before 1900.
San Joaquin kit fox
(Vulpes macrotis
mutica)
FE, CT
Underground dens with multiple
entrances in alkali sink, valley
grassland, and woodland in valleys and
adjacent foothills.
Unlikely. The highly disturbed
habitats within the APE are less than
marginal for this species. The only
known population of this species in
Fresno County is located more than
40 miles northwest of the APE.
Swainson’s Hawk
(Buteo swainsoni) CT
Nests in large trees in open areas
adjacent to grasslands, grain or alfalfa
fields, or livestock pastures suitable
for supporting rodent populations.
Unlikely. The highly disturbed urban
and residential areas in the
surrounding region are less than
marginal for this species. The nearest
contemporary recorded observation of
this species occurred approximately
6.5 miles southwest of the APE in
annual grassland and pasture habitat.
Vernal pool fairy
shrimp
(Branchinecta
lynchi)
FT
Occupies vernal pools, clear to tea-
colored water, in grass or mud-
bottomed swales, and basalt
depression pools.
Absent. Suitable vernal pool habitat
for this species is absent from the
APE and surrounding lands. The APE
is subject to frequent ground
disturbance and therefore generally
unsuitable for this species.
To City of Fresno December 16, 2022
Biological Review of the 102A Wellhead Treatment Project Page 5 of 11 Species Status Habitat Occurrence within Project Site
Western Yellow-
billed Cuckoo
(Coccyzus
americanus
occidentalis)
FT, CE
Suitable nesting habitat in California
includes dense riparian willow-
cottonwood and mesquite habitats
along a perennial river. Once a
common breeding species in riparian
habitats of lowland California, this
species currently breeds consistently in
only two locations in the State: along
the Sacramento and South Fork Kern
Rivers.
Absent. This species is considered
extirpated from the region. The only
two regionally recorded observations
of this species occurred more than
100 years ago.
Table 3. List of Special Status Plants with Potential to Occur Onsite and/or in the Vicinity.
Species Status Habitat Occurrence within Project Site
California
jewelflower
(Caulanthus
californicus)
FE, CE,
CNPS
1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley and
Western Transverse Ranges in sandy
soils. Occurs on flats and slopes,
generally in non-alkaline grassland at
elevations between 230 feet and 6100
feet. Blooms February–April.
Absent. The disturbed habitats of the
APE are unsuitable for this species.
The only regional recorded observation
of this species lists it as “Extirpated”
from the region.
California satintail
(Imperata brevifolia)
CNPS
2B
Although this facultative species is
equally likely to occur in wetlands and
non-wetlands, it is often found in wet
springs, meadows, streambanks, and
floodplains at elevations below 1600
feet. Blooms September – May.
Absent. Habitats required by this
species are absent from the APE. The
only regional recorded observation of
this species occurred more than 100
years ago.
Madera leptosiphon
(Leptosiphon
serrulatus)
CNPS
1B
Found in openings in foothill
woodland, often yellow-pine forest,
and chaparral at elevations between
1000 feet and 4300 feet. Blooms April
– May.
Absent. The APE is outside the
current known elevational range of this
species. Habitats required by this
species are absent from the APE.
EXPLANATION OF OCCURRENCE DESIGNATIONS AND STATUS CODES Unlikely: Species not observed on the site, and would not be expected to occur there except, perhaps, as a transient.
Absent: Species not observed on the site and precluded from occurring there due to absence of suitable habitat.
STATUS CODES
FE Federally Endangered CE California Endangered
FT Federally Threatened CT California Threatened
FC Federal Candidate CFP California Fully Protected
CSC California Species of Concern
CWL California Watch List
CNPS LISTING
1B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in 2B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere. California, but more common elsewhere.
Designated Habitat and Communities
The CDFW and USFWS often designate areas of “Critical Habitat” when i t lists species as threatened or endangered. Critical Habitat is a specific geographic area that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and would require special To City of Fresno December 16, 2022
Biological Review of the 102A Wellhead Treatment Project Page 6 of 11 management or protection. According to CNDDB and IPaC, designated critical habitat is absent from the APE and vicinity.
CDFW also designates “natural communities of special concern” and are defined by distinguished, significant biological diversity, or a home to special status species. According to CNDDB, the APE contains no natural communities of special concern.
Wildlife Corridors
Wildlife movement corridors are routes that animals regularly and predictably follow during seasonal migration, dispersal from native ranges, daily travel within home ranges , and inter - population movements. Movement corridors in California are typically associated with valleys, ridgelines, and rivers and creeks supporting riparian vegetation. According to aerial imagery, the Fancher Creek Canal contains several patches of riparian vegetation which could act as cover for wildlife species utilizing the canal to disperse through the urban landscape. The canal, however, is separated from the APE by a 0.2 -mile portion of a 4-lane road (Fowler Avenue), and a large, ruderal plot of land that appears to be frequently disced. No features within the APE would be expected to serve as a wildlife movement corridor.
Project Impacts Analysis and Recommendations
Of the 16 regionally occurring special status animal species, all were found to be absent or unlikely to occur within the APE due to unsuitable habitat. As explained in Table 2, these species include:
American badger , Burrowing Owl, California Condor, California glossy snake, California tiger salamander, coast horned lizard, Crotch bumblebee, delta smelt, Fresno kangaroo rat, Least Bell’s Vireo, Northern California legless lizard, monarch butterfly, San Joaquin kit fox, Swainson’s Hawk, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo. Since it is unlikely these species would occur onsite, implementation of the Project would have no impact on these special status species through construction mortality, disturbance, or loss of habitat. Mitigation measures are not warranted.
Of the three regionally occurring special status plant species, all were found to be absent within the APE due to unsuitable habitat, known range, elevation, and soil type. As explained in Table 3, these species include: California jewelflower, California satintail, and Madera leptosiphon. Since it is unlikely these species would occur onsite, implementation of the Project would have no impact on these special status species through construction mortality, disturbance, or loss of habitat. Mitigation measures are not warranted.
The APE does provide marginal nesting habitat for multiple avian species, including ground nesting birds such as Killdeer ( Charadrius vociferus ). Birds nesting within the APE during construction have the potential to be injured or killed by Project -related activities. In addition to the direct “take” of nesting birds, nesting birds within the APE or adjacent areas could be disturbed by Project -related activities resulting in nest abandonment. Projects that adversely affect the nesting success of raptors and migratory birds or result in the mortality of individual birds are considered a violation of State and federal laws.
The following recommendations have been identified to protect these species.
Recommendations
1. The Project’s construction activities will occur, if feasible, between September 16 and January 31 (outside of nesting bird season) in an effort to avoid impacts to nesting birds.
2. If activities must occur within nesting bird season (February 1 to September 15), a qualified biologist w ill conduct a pre-construction survey for all nesting birds within the Project boundary and an additional 50 feet surrounding the Project, no more than 7 days prior to To City of Fresno December 16, 2022
Biological Review of the 102A Wellhead Treatment Project Page 7 of 11 the start of construction. All raptor nests would be considered “active” upon the nest - building stage.
3. On discovery of any active nests or breeding colonies near work areas, the biologist will determine appropriate construction setback distances based on applicable CDFW and/or USFWS guidelines and/or the biology of the species in question. Construction buffers will be identified with flagging, fencing, or other easily visible means, and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the nestlings have fledged and are no longer dependent on the nest.
Summary of Review
Although there is a pote ntial f or Project activities to impact nesting birds , adhering to the recommendations discussed above would result in less than significant impacts to these avian species, therefore, no additional actions are warranted.
Protected habitats and natural communities, wildlife corridors, and waters of the State or United States are outside of the APE and would not be impacted by the Project.
If Project activities were to change or the APE were to be altered, an additional biological review may be necessary to determine any further potential biological impacts. If you have any questions or need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Mary Beth Bourne
Associate Biologist
Attachments:
Attachment A - APE Map
Attachment B - NRCS Soil Report
Attachment C - CNDDB Species List
Attachment D - IPaC Species List
To City of Fresno December 16, 2022
Biological Review of the 102A Wellhead Treatment Project Page 8 of 11 References
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2022. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Accessed November 2022.
Nafis, G. 2022. Accessed November 2022. http://www.californiaherps.com/.
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2022. websoilsurvey. Accessed November 2022. http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2022. Waters GeoViewer. Accessed November 2022. https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/waters-geoviewer.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2022. Accessed November 2022. https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/.
USFWS. (2020). Species Status Assessment Report for the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service.. 2022. Information on Planning and Consultation (IPaC). Accessed November 2022. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/.
Wilkerson, R.L., and R.B. Siegel. 2010. "Assessing changes in the distribution and abundance of burrowing owls in California, 1993-2007." Bird Populations 10:1-36. Accessed November 2022.
Attachment A - APE Map
Attachment B - NRCS Soil Report
United States
Department of
Agriculture
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Eastern Fresno
Area, California
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
December 14, 2022
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.
They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.
Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment.
Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.
The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.
Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951).
Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey.
Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
3 Contents
Preface.................................................................................................................... 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map.................................................................................................................. 8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................ 11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Eastern Fresno Area, California......................................................................13 ArA—Atwater sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes........................................13 Rc—Ramona loam......................................................................................14 References............................................................................................................16 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.
Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.
The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape.
Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.
Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).
Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research.
The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.
The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded.
These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.
Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties.
While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management.
Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil.
Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.
After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report
6 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.
Custom Soil Resource Report
7 Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 9
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
4070140 4070180 4070220 4070260 4070300 4070340 4070380 4070420 4070140 4070180 4070220 4070260 4070300 4070340 4070380 260470 260510 260550 260590 260630 260670 260710 260750 260790 260830 260870 260910 260470 260510 260550 260590 260630 260670 260710 260750 260790 260830 260870 260910 36° 44' 57'' N
119° 40' 59'' W
36° 44' 57'' N
119° 40' 40'' W
36° 44' 48'' N
119° 40' 59'' W
36° 44' 48'' N
119° 40' 40'' W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 0 100 200 400 600
Feet
0 30 60 120 180
Meters
Map Scale: 1:2,100 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Eastern Fresno Area, California
Survey Area Data: Version 15, Sep 1, 2022
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Mar 16, 2022—May 30, 2022
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Custom Soil Resource Report
10 Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI ArA Atwater sandy loam, 0 to 3
percent slopes
1.1 34.6%
Rc Ramona loam 2.1 65.4%
Totals for Area of Interest 3.2 100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.
Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, Custom Soil Resource Report
11 onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.
Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities.
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.
The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
Custom Soil Resource Report
12 Eastern Fresno Area, California
ArA—Atwater sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hl0x
Elevation: 250 to 450 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 9 to 14 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 63 degrees F
Frost-free period: 250 to 275 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Atwater and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Atwater
Setting
Landform: Dunes on fan remnants
Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder, footslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, base slope Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Eolian deposits derived from alluvium derived from granite Typical profile
A - 0 to 24 inches: sandy loam
Bt - 24 to 43 inches: sandy loam
C - 43 to 60 inches: loamy sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Very low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 6.8 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2s
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Ecological site: R017XY905CA - Dry Alluvial Fans and Terraces Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Unnamed, sandy clay loam subsoil
Percent of map unit: 12 percent
Landform: Dunes on fan remnants
Custom Soil Resource Report
13 Hydric soil rating: No
Delhi
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Dunes on fan remnants
Hydric soil rating: No
Rc—Ramona loam
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hl8m
Elevation: 250 to 500 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 9 to 15 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 60 to 62 degrees F
Frost-free period: 225 to 275 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Ramona and similar soils: 80 percent
Minor components: 20 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Ramona
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans, stream terraces
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from granite
Typical profile
A - 0 to 12 inches: loam
BAt - 12 to 24 inches: loam
Bt - 24 to 38 inches: clay loam
C - 38 to 60 inches: coarse sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 5.5 inches) Custom Soil Resource Report
14 Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 1
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4c
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R017XY905CA - Dry Alluvial Fans and Terraces Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Unnamed, fine sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Landform: Stream terraces, alluvial fans
Hydric soil rating: No
Unnamed, clay loam
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Stream terraces, alluvial fans
Hydric soil rating: No
Unnamed, gently sloping
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Stream terraces, alluvial fans
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
15 References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31.
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States.
National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 16 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report
17 Attachment C - CNDDB Species List
Species
Element Code
Federal Status
State Status
Global Rank
State Rank
Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
alkali-sink goldfields
Lasthenia chrysantha
PDAST5L030
None
None
G2
S2
1B.1
American badger
Taxidea taxus
AMAJF04010
None
None
G5
S3
SSC
Antioch efferian robberfly
Efferia antiochi
IIDIP07010
None
None
G1G2
S1S2
black-crowned night heron
Nycticorax nycticorax
ABNGA11010
None
None
G5
S4
bristly sedge
Carex comosa
PMCYP032Y0
None
None
G5
S2
2B.1
burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
ABNSB10010
None
None
G4
S3
SSC
California glossy snake
Arizona elegans occidentalis
ARADB01017
None
None
G5T2
S2
SSC
California jewelflower
Caulanthus californicus
PDBRA31010
Endangered
Endangered
G1
S1
1B.1
California linderiella
Linderiella occidentalis
ICBRA06010
None
None
G2G3
S2S3
California satintail
Imperata brevifolia
PMPOA3D020
None
None
G3
S3
2B.1
California tiger salamander - central California DPS
Ambystoma californiense pop. 1
AAAAA01181
Threatened
Threatened
G2G3T3
S3
WL
coast horned lizard
Phrynosoma blainvillii
ARACF12100
None
None
G3G4
S4
SSC
Crotch bumble bee
Bombus crotchii
IIHYM24480
None
Candidate
Endangered
G2
S1S2
double-crested cormorant
Nannopterum auritum
ABNFD01020
None
None
G5
S4
WL
forked hare-leaf
Lagophylla dichotoma
PDAST5J070
None
None
G2
S2
1B.1
Fresno kangaroo rat
Dipodomys nitratoides exilis
AMAFD03151
Endangered
Endangered
G3TH
SH
great egret
Ardea alba
ABNGA04040
None
None
G5
S4
Greene's tuctoria
Tuctoria greenei
PMPOA6N010
Endangered
Rare
G1
S1
1B.1
hoary bat
Lasiurus cinereus
AMACC05030
None
None
G3G4
S4
Query Criteria:
Quad<span style='color:Red'> IS </span>(Malaga (3611966)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Conejo (3611956)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Selma (3611955)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Caruthers (3611957)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Fresno South (3611967)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Fresno North (3611977)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Clovis (3611976)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Round Mountain (3611975)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Sanger (3611965)) Report Printed on Tuesday, November 15, 2022
Commercial Version -- Dated October, 30 2022 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Information Expires 4/30/2023
Selected Elements by Common Name
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Species
Element Code
Federal Status
State Status
Global Rank
State Rank
Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Hurd's metapogon robberfly
Metapogon hurdi
IIDIP08010
None
None
G1G2
S1S2
least Bell's vireo
Vireo bellii pusillus
ABPBW01114
Endangered
Endangered
G5T2
S2
Madera leptosiphon
Leptosiphon serrulatus
PDPLM09130
None
None
G3
S3
1B.2
midvalley fairy shrimp
Branchinecta mesovallensis
ICBRA03150
None
None
G2
S2S3
molestan blister beetle
Lytta molesta
IICOL4C030
None
None
G2
S2
Northern California legless lizard
Anniella pulchra
ARACC01020
None
None
G3
S3
SSC
Northern Claypan Vernal Pool
Northern Claypan Vernal Pool
CTT44120CA
None
None
G1
S1.1
Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool
Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool
CTT44110CA
None
None
G3
S3.1
pallid bat
Antrozous pallidus
AMACC10010
None
None
G4
S3
SSC
San Joaquin adobe sunburst
Pseudobahia peirsonii
PDAST7P030
Threatened
Endangered
G1
S1
1B.1
San Joaquin kit fox
Vulpes macrotis mutica
AMAJA03041
Endangered
Threatened
G4T2
S2
San Joaquin pocket mouse
Perognathus inornatus
AMAFD01060
None
None
G2G3
S2S3
San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass
Orcuttia inaequalis
PMPOA4G060
Threatened
Endangered
G1
S1
1B.1
Sanford's arrowhead
Sagittaria sanfordii
PMALI040Q0
None
None
G3
S3
1B.2
snowy egret
Egretta thula
ABNGA06030
None
None
G5
S4
spiny-sepaled button-celery
Eryngium spinosepalum
PDAPI0Z0Y0
None
None
G2
S2
1B.2
succulent owl's-clover
Castilleja campestris var. succulenta
PDSCR0D3Z1
Threatened
Endangered
G4?T2T3
S2S3
1B.2
Swainson's hawk
Buteo swainsoni
ABNKC19070
None
Threatened
G5
S3
tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
ABPBXB0020
None
Threatened
G1G2
S1S2
SSC
valley elderberry longhorn beetle
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus
IICOL48011
Threatened
None
G3T2T3
S3
vernal pool fairy shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi
ICBRA03030
Threatened
None
G3
S3
Report Printed on Tuesday, November 15, 2022
Commercial Version -- Dated October, 30 2022 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Information Expires 4/30/2023
Selected Elements by Common Name
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Species
Element Code
Federal Status
State Status
Global Rank
State Rank
Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
western mastiff bat
Eumops perotis californicus
AMACD02011
None
None
G4G5T4
S3S4
SSC
western pond turtle
Emys marmorata
ARAAD02030
None
None
G3G4
S3
SSC
western spadefoot
Spea hammondii
AAABF02020
None
None
G2G3
S3
SSC
western yellow-billed cuckoo
Coccyzus americanus occidentalis
ABNRB02022
Threatened
Endangered
G5T2T3
S1
Record Count: 44
Report Printed on Tuesday, November 15, 2022
Commercial Version -- Dated October, 30 2022 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Information Expires 4/30/2023
Selected Elements by Common Name
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Attachment D - IPaC Species List
December 15, 2022
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
Phone: (916) 414-6600 Fax: (916) 414-6713
In Reply Refer To:
Project Code: 2023-0025566
Project Name: Biological Review of the proposed City of Fresno 102A Wellhead Treatment Project # 1561-22013 TK4
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat.
12/15/2022 2
A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.
If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to protect native birds from project-related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more information regarding these Acts see https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations.php.
The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan (when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize the production of project-related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and their resources to the project-related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and recommended conservation measures see https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-to- birds.php.
In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/ executive-orders/e0-13186.php.
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of 12/15/2022 3
▪
this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.
Attachment(s):
Official Species List
12/15/2022 1
Official Species List
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action".
This species list is provided by:
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
(916) 414-6600
12/15/2022 2
Project Summary
Project Code: 2023-0025566
Project Name: Biological Review of the proposed City of Fresno 102A Wellhead Treatment Project # 1561-22013 TK4
Project Type: Water Supply Facility - Maintenance / Modification Project Description: The City of Fresno, Department of Public Utilities proposes to construct a water supply well, known as Pump Station 102A. The Project would construct the following:
• Tie-in to the existing PS 102A well head piping
• Approximately 1,400 linear feet (LF) of 12-inch diameter raw water main between the existing PS 102A well site and the treatment site • Acquire and develop a 175’ by 160’ triangular treatment site with concrete and metal fencing, in addition to frontage improvements • Four (4) 40-foot by 40-foot granulated activated carbon vessels • Approximately 450 LF of 18-inch diameter storm drain pipe Future improvements would include:
• One (1) generator
• Groundwater extraction well, manifold piping, deaeration tank, and booster pump
• Manganese filters
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@36.74804175,-119.68203163359829,14z Counties: Fresno County, California
12/15/2022 3
1. Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 8 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.
NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
Mammals
NAME STATUS
Fresno Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys nitratoides exilis
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5150
Endangered
San Joaquin Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis mutica
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2873
Endangered
Birds
NAME STATUS
California Condor Gymnogyps californianus
Population: U.S.A. only, except where listed as an experimental population There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8193
Endangered
Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus
Population: Western U.S. DPS
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3911
Threatened
1 12/15/2022 4
Amphibians
NAME STATUS
California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense
Population: U.S.A. (Central CA DPS)
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2076
Threatened
Fishes
NAME STATUS
Delta Smelt Hypomesus transpacificus
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/321
Threatened
Insects
NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate
Crustaceans
NAME STATUS
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/498
Threatened
Critical habitats
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION.
12/15/2022 5
IPaC User Contact Information
Agency: Provost & Pritchard
Name: Mary Beth Bourne
Address: 455 W Fir Ave
City: Clovis
State: CA
Zip: 93611
Email [email protected]
Phone: 5594492700
C-1
Appendix C: Cultural Resources Information
City of Fresno
Water Treatment of Well 102 A
Project
Cultural Resources Information
San Joaquin Valley Information Center, CSU Bakersfield, California Historical Resources Information System: Record Search 21-429, dated November 15, 2022. • There have been no previous cultural resource studies conducted within the project area.
• There have been five cultural resource studies conducted within the one-half mile radius:
FR-00257, 00535, 02223, 02237, and 03030
• There are no recorded resources within the project area, and it is not known if any exist. • There are ten recorded resources in the one -half mile radius: P -10-003038, 003039, 004415, 006089, 006091, 006100, 007232, 007233, 007234, and 007235. o These resources consist of four historic era buildings, an historic era bridge, an historic era row of p alm trees, an historic era trash scatter and well, and three prehistoric era ground stones.
• Resource P-10-004415, Bridge #42-65, has been given a National Register status code of 3S, indicating that this resource appears eligible for listing in the Nationa l Register of Historic Places as an individual property through survey evaluation. • There are no other recorded cultural resources within the project area or radius that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of His torical Resources, the California Points of Historical Interest, California Inventory of Historic Resources, for the California State Historic Landmarks.
Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC): Sacred Lands File & Native American Contacts List Request, dated December 7, 2022.
• A Record Search of the NAHC Sacred Lands File was completed for the Area of Potential Effect (APE) with negative results.
AB 52 Consultation pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 21080.3.1 • The City of Fresno has received a letter from the Dumna Wo Wah Tribe and the Table Mountain Rancheria Tribe.
• A Tribal Consultation Notification Request Letter was sent out by the City of Fresno via certified mail dated December 19, 2022, which included a Project Description, map of the APE and a Topo map.
• No correspondence has been received by the City of Fresno pursuant to the Tribal Consultation Notification Request Letter.
CHRIS – Record Search Results
To: Jackie Lancaster Record Search 22-429
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
400 E. Main Street, Suite 300
Visalia, CA 93291
Date: November 15, 2022
Re: City of Fresno, 102A Wellhead Treatment Project
County: Fresno
Map(s): Malaga 7.5’
CULTURAL RESOURCES RECORDS SEARCH
The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) contracts with the California Historical R esources Information System’s (CHRIS) regional Information Centers (ICs) to maintain information in the CHRIS inventory and make it available to local, state, and federal agencies, cultural resource professionals, Native American tribes, res earchers, and t he public. Re commendations mad e b y IC coordin ators or their staff regarding the interpretation and application of this information are advisory only. Such recommendations do not necessarily represent the eval uation or opinion of the State Hi storic Preserva tion Officer in carrying out t he OHP’s regulatory authority under federal and state law.
The following are the results of a search of the cultural resource files at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center. These files include kno wn and recorded cultural resources sites, inventory and excavation reports filed with this office, and resources listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the OHP Built Environment Resources Directory, California State His torical L andmarks, Calif ornia Register of Historical Resources, California Inventory of Histor ic Resources, and California Points of Historical Interest. Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been sub mitted to the OHP are availa ble via this records search. A dditional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area.
PRIOR CULTURAL RESOURCE STUDIES CONDUCTED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AND THE ONE-HALF MILE RADIUS
According to the information in our files, there have been no previous cultural resource studies conducted within the project area. T here have been five cultural resource studies conducted within the the one-half mile radius: FR-00257, 00535, 02223, 02237, and 03030.
Record Search 22-429
KNOWN/RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AND THE ONE-HALF MILE RADIUS
According to the information in our files, there are no recorded resources within the project area, and it is unknown if any exist there . There are ten recorded resources in the one -half mile radius: P- 10-003038, 003039, 004415, 006089, 006091, 006100, 007232, 007233, 007234, and 007235. These resources consist of four historic era buildings, an historic era bridge, an historic era row of palm trees, an historic era trash scat ter and well, and three prehistoric era ground stones.
Resource P-10-004415, Bridge #42 -65, has been given a National Register status code of 3S, indicating that this resource appears eligible for listing in the National Register of Hi storic Places as an individual property through survey evaluation. There are no recorded cultural resources within the project area or radius that are listed in the N ational Register of Historic Places, the California Register of H istorical Resources, the California Points o f Historical I nterest, C alifornia Inventory of Hist oric Re sources, for t he California St ate Hist oric Landmarks.
COMMENTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
We understand this project consists of installation of approximately 1,400 LF of pipeline within existing road right of way from an existing well to a vacant section of land where the proposed treatment facilities will be located. Because a cultural resources study has not be completed on this pro ject area, it is unknown if any cultural resources are present. Therefore, we recommend a qualified, professional consultant conduct a field survey of any vacant land prior to groun d disturbance activities to determine if cultural resources are present.
No furth er investigation is currently recommended for the road right of ways. Ho wever, if any cultural resources are un earthed during ground disturbance activities, all work must halt in the area of the find and a qualified, p rofessional consultant should be called out to assess the findings and make the appropriate mitigation recommendations. A list of qualified consultants can be found at www.chrisinfo.org.
We al so recommend that you contact the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento. They will p rovide you wi th a current li st of N ative American in dividuals/organizations that can assist yo u wi th information regarding cultural resources that may not be included in the CHRIS Inventory and that may be of concern to the Na tive groups in the area. The C ommission can consult their "Sacred Lands Inventory" file to determine what sacred resources, if any , exist within this project area and the way in which these resources might b
e managed. Finally, ple ase consult wi th t he lead agency on th is projec t to deter mine if any other cultural resource inv estigation is r equired. If you need any add itional informat ion or have any questi ons or concerns, please contact our office at (661) 654-2289.
By:
C
eleste M. Thomson, Coordinator Date: November 15, 2022
Please note that invoices for Information Center services will be sent under separate cover from the California State University, Bakersfield Accounting Office.
NAHC – Sacred Lands File Search Results
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION