INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 4-105 of recommended mitigation measures include the topics of biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, and noise. For the topic of biological resources, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5 would ensure that impacts related to special status-species and modification of the Peoples Ditch are reduced to a less-than-significant level. For the topic of cultural resources, potentially significant impacts to archaeological resources would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures CULT-1 and CULT-2 and Mitigation Measures CULT-3 and CULT-4 would reduce potential impacts to human remains to a less than significant level. For the topic of geology and soils, potentially significant impacts related to soil erosion during construction would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 and potentially significant impacts related to paleontological resources would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-2. For the topic of hydrology and water quality, implementation of Mitigation Measures HYDRO-1 and HYDRO-2 would ensure that potential water quality impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level. For the topic of noise, impacts would be reduced to a lessthan-significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-4.
For the topics of aesthetics, air quality, agricultural and forestry resources, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire, the project would have no impacts or less-than-significant impacts, and therefore, the project would not substantially contribute to any potential cumulative impacts for these topics. All environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed project would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through the implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this document.
Implementation of these measures would ensure that the impacts of the project would be below established thresholds of significance and that these impacts would not combine with the impacts of other cumulative projects to result in a cumulatively considerable impact on the environment as a result of project development. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
The proposed project would not result in any environmental effects that would cause substantial direct or indirect adverse effects to human beings.
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
4 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -106 This page intentionally left blank
INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 5-1
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
LSA
2565 Alluvial Avenue, Suite 172
Clovis, California 93611
Amy Fischer, Principal-in-Charge
Cara Cunningham, Associate/Project Manager
157 Park Place
Pt. Richmond, California 94801
Patty Linder, Graphics/Document Production
Lauren Johnson, Document Management
Chantik Virgil, Document Management
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
5 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -2 This page intentionally left blank
INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 6-1
6.0 REFERENCES
Applied EarthWorks, Inc. 2020. Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project in the City of Hanford, Kings County, California. August.
Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. 1987. Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants.
California Air Resources Board. 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November. _____. 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan Appendix D Local Actions. November. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca. gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/2022-sp-appendix-d-local-actions.pdf (accessed March 2023).
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. Website:
maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed March 2023).
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.
State of California Natural Resources Agency. March 2012.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2007. Fire Hazard Severity Zone in Local Resource Area (LRA). September 20. Website: osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/ 6689/fhszl06_1_map16.pdf (accessed March 2023).
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2019. EnviroStor. Website: www.enviro stor.dtsc.ca.gov/public (accessed March 2023).
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2017. California Scenic Highways. February.
Website: www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?useExisting=1&layers= f0259b1ad0fe4093a5604c9b838a486a (accessed March 2023).
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2021. 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report. California Energy Commission. Docket Number: 21-IEPR-01.
_____. 2022a. 2020 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update. California Energy Commission. Docket Number: 22-IEPR-01.
_____. 2022b. Energy Consumption Data Management Service. Electricity Consumption by County and Entity. Website: www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx (accessed March 2023). _____. 2022c. Energy Consumption Data Management Service. Gas Consumption by County and Entity. Website: www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx (accessed March 2023). _____. n.d. California Gasoline Data, Facts, and Statistics. Website: www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/energy-almanac/transportation-energy/california-gasoline-data-facts-and-statistics (accessed March 2023).
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
6 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -2 California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2019. Government Code Section 65962.5(a).
Website: calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/section-65962-5a/ (accessed March 2023).
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. December 2018.
Hanford, City of. 2014. General Plan Background Report - Hanford, California. March. Website:
cms6.revize.com/revize/hanfordca/document_center/Planning/General% 20Plan/2034%20General%20Plan%20Background%20Report.pdf (accessed March 2023). _____. 2017. General Plan – City of Hanford, California. April. Website: cms6.revize.com/revize/ hanfordc a/document_center/Planning/General%20Plan/2035%20General%20 Plan%20Policy%20Document.pdf (accessed March 2023).
_____. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. October. Website: http://cms6.revize.com/ revize/hanfordca/document_center/Public%20Works/Water%20Management/2020%20UW MP,%20Final.pdf (accessed March 2023).
_____. 2022. VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines. November.
Kings County and Cities of Avenal, Corcoran, Hanford and Lemoore. 2016. 2016-2024 Housing Element. January. Website: cms6.revize.com/revize/hanfordca/document_center/ Planning/General%20Plan/Adopted%20Housing%20Element%20(03-31-2016).pdf (accessed March 2023).
Kings County Association of Governments. 2014. Final Regional Climate Action Plan. May 28.
Website: https://www.kingscog.org/vertical/sites/%7BC427AE30-9936-4733-B9D4- 140709AD3BBF%7D/uploads/RegionalCAP-GHGAppendices.pdf (accessed March 2023).
Kleinfelder. 2020. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Geologic and Seismic Hazards Evaluation Report Proposed Hanford Place, Medical and Mixed-Use Property Hanford, California. June 9.
LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA). 2020. Biological Resources Assessments Hanford Place Project Kings County, California. May.
_____. 2023. Hanford Place Medical Mixed-use Development Project Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Memorandum. March.
Mitchell Air Quality Consulting. 2020. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report Hanford Place Medical and Mixed‐Use Project Hanford, California. July 30.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2009. Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA. December 17.
Website: www.valleyair.org/Programs/CCAP/12-17-09/3%20CCAP%20-%20FINAL%20LU% 20Guidance%20-%20Dec%2017%202009.pdf (accessed March 2023).
INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 6-3 _____. 2015. CEQA, Guidance/Policies/Rules, Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. March 19. Website: www.valleyair.org/transportation/ceqa_idx.htm (accessed March 2023).
_____. 2016. San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. Air Quality Attainment Status.
Southern California Edison (SCE). 2020. About Us. Website: https://www.sce.com/about-us/whowe-are (accessed March 2023).
Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). 2020. About SoCalGas. Website:
https://www3.socalgas.com/about-us/company-profile (accessed March 2023).
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2019. State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State [For Inclusion in the Water Quality Control Plans for Inland Surface Waters and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries and Ocean Waters of California]. Adopted April 2, 2019. Effective May 28, 2020.
The Hanford Group. 2019. Hanford Place Medical and Mixed Use-Property Proposal.
Transportation Research Board. 2016. Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2022. QuickFacts Hanford City, California. Website: census.gov/quickfacts/ hanfordcitycalifornia (accessed March 2023).
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2017. “Table 4-23: Average Fuel Efficiency of U.S. Light Duty Vehicles.” Website: www.bts.gov/archive/publications/national_transportation_ statistics /table_04_23 (accessed March 2023).
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2019. Southern California Daily Energy Report.
Website: www.eia.gov/special/disruptions/socal/winter/#commentary (accessed March 2023)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. January 2011.
U. S. Geological Survey. 2000. Operational Guidelines (version 1.0) for Geological Fieldwork in Areas Endemic for Coccidioidomycosis (Valley Fever). Website: pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ ofr00348 (accessed March 2023).
_____. 2011. Van Gosen, B.S., and Clinkenbeard, J.P. California Geological Survey Map Sheet 59.
Reported Historic Asbestos Mines, Historic Asbestos Prospects, and Other Natural Occurrences of Asbestos in California. Open‐File Report 2011‐1188. Website: http://pubs. usgs.gov /of/2011/1188/ (accessed March 2023).
VRPA Technologies, Inc. 2020. Draft Hanford Place Development Traffic Impact Study. December.
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
6 P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -4 Waste Management. 2019. Facility Expansion. Website: kettlemanhillslandfill.wm.com/facilityexpansion/index.jsp (accessed March 2023). _____. 2021. Facility Overview. Website: https://kettlemanhillslandfill.wm.com/fact-sheets/2011/ facility-overview.jsp (accessed March 2023).
WJV Acoustics, Inc. 2021. Acoustical Analysis Hanford Place Hanford, California WJVA Report No. 20- 016. May 12.
INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) 6-5 This page intentionally left blank
INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) A-1
APPENDIX A
CALEEMOD OUTPUTS
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
A P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -2 This page intentional left blank
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
1 / 55
Hanford Place Project Custom Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
3.5. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
2 / 55
3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
3.11. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated
3.13. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
3.15. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.2. Unmitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.2. Unmitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.2. Unmitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
3 / 55
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
4 / 55
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
5 / 55
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
6 / 55
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
8. User Changes to Default Data
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
7 / 55
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Hanford Place Project
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.40
Precipitation (days) 23.0
Location 36.32149538375269, -119.66421703413741
County Kings
City Hanford
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2627
EDFZ 9
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Medical Office
Building
72.3 1000sqft 3.09 72,305 0.00 — — —
Hotel 105 Room 4.15 100,000 0.00 — — —
Junior College (2yr) 35.0 1000sqft 0.95 35,000 0.00 0.00 — —
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
8 / 55
Congregate Care
(Assisted Living)
139 Dwelling Unit 4.76 123,471 0.00 — 431 —
Apartments Mid Rise 90.0 Dwelling Unit 3.55 76,500 0.00 — 279 — Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
5.00 Acre 6.00 0.00 0.00 — — —
Parking Lot 1,466 Space 15.6 0.00 170,755 — — —
Strip Mall 41.5 1000sqft 2.00 41,500 0.00 — — —
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.01 59.4 38.8 0.12 1.53 7.79 8.91 1.40 3.97 4.99 — 15,564 15,564 0.35 1.42 16,019 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 53.6 39.9 29.0 0.05 1.12 7.79 8.91 1.02 3.97 4.99 — 5,431 5,431 0.24 0.22 5,451 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 6.71 20.3 18.1 0.03 0.58 2.26 2.84 0.53 0.79 1.33 — 4,820 4,820 0.16 0.31 4,920 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.22 3.70 3.31 0.01 0.11 0.41 0.52 0.10 0.15 0.24 — 798 798 0.03 0.05 815
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
9 / 55
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 2.01 59.4 38.8 0.12 1.53 7.79 8.91 1.40 3.97 4.99 — 15,564 15,564 0.35 1.42 16,019 2025 1.93 21.0 28.1 0.03 0.70 2.06 2.76 0.65 0.51 1.16 — 5,373 5,373 0.22 0.21 5,450 2026 1.77 20.9 27.0 0.03 0.70 2.06 2.76 0.65 0.51 1.16 — 5,311 5,311 0.22 0.20 5,386 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.84 39.9 29.0 0.05 1.12 7.79 8.91 1.02 3.97 4.99 — 5,431 5,431 0.24 0.22 5,451 2025 1.71 21.3 25.0 0.03 0.70 2.06 2.76 0.65 0.51 1.16 — 5,122 5,122 0.24 0.21 5,190 2026 53.6 21.2 24.1 0.03 0.70 2.06 2.76 0.65 0.51 1.16 — 5,066 5,066 0.17 0.21 5,133 2027 53.6 1.26 2.65 < 0.005 0.07 0.37 0.44 0.06 0.09 0.15 — 509 509 0.02 0.02 515 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.01 20.3 17.8 0.03 0.58 2.26 2.84 0.53 0.79 1.33 — 4,820 4,820 0.16 0.31 4,920 2025 1.23 15.1 18.1 0.02 0.50 1.45 1.95 0.47 0.36 0.82 — 3,709 3,709 0.16 0.15 3,761 2026 1.54 13.7 15.4 0.02 0.47 1.17 1.64 0.44 0.29 0.73 — 3,131 3,131 0.10 0.12 3,172 2027 6.71 0.16 0.34 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 — 65.5 65.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 66.2 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.18 3.70 3.25 0.01 0.11 0.41 0.52 0.10 0.15 0.24 — 798 798 0.03 0.05 815 2025 0.23 2.76 3.31 < 0.005 0.09 0.26 0.36 0.08 0.06 0.15 — 614 614 0.03 0.02 623 2026 0.28 2.51 2.81 < 0.005 0.09 0.21 0.30 0.08 0.05 0.13 — 518 518 0.02 0.02 525 2027 1.22 0.03 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.8 10.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.0
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
10 / 55
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 37.3 19.1 165 0.40 7.96 5.91 13.9 7.69 1.04 8.73 2,041 34,390 36,431 87.5 1.39 39,252 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 32.1 20.5 138 0.38 7.94 5.91 13.9 7.66 1.04 8.70 2,041 32,764 34,806 87.7 1.47 37,598 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 29.4 17.7 105 0.25 2.11 5.91 8.02 2.05 1.04 3.09 1,076 31,371 32,447 83.0 1.42 35,132 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 5.37 3.22 19.2 0.05 0.39 1.08 1.46 0.37 0.19 0.56 178 5,194 5,372 13.7 0.24 5,817
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 18.0 13.0 86.4 0.20 0.18 5.91 6.08 0.17 1.04 1.21 — 20,234 20,234 1.02 1.20 20,676 Area 19.1 2.96 76.3 0.18 7.55 — 7.55 7.28 — 7.28 1,245 2,490 3,735 5.87 0.01 3,883 Energy 0.17 3.05 2.13 0.02 0.24 — 0.24 0.24 — 0.24 — 11,510 11,510 0.81 0.07 11,550 Water — — — — — — — — — — 48.8 156 205 5.01 0.12 366
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 748 0.00 748 74.7 0.00 2,616
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
11 / 55
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 161
Total 37.3 19.1 165 0.40 7.96 5.91 13.9 7.69 1.04 8.73 2,041 34,390 36,431 87.5 1.39 39,252 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 15.8 14.8 83.6 0.18 0.18 5.91 6.08 0.17 1.04 1.21 — 18,687 18,687 1.24 1.28 19,102 Area 16.2 2.74 52.5 0.18 7.53 — 7.53 7.26 — 7.26 1,245 2,411 3,655 5.86 < 0.005 3,803 Energy 0.17 3.05 2.13 0.02 0.24 — 0.24 0.24 — 0.24 — 11,510 11,510 0.81 0.07 11,550 Water — — — — — — — — — — 48.8 156 205 5.01 0.12 366
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 748 0.00 748 74.7 0.00 2,616
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 161
Total 32.1 20.5 138 0.38 7.94 5.91 13.9 7.66 1.04 8.70 2,041 32,764 34,806 87.7 1.47 37,598 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 16.1 13.9 79.5 0.19 0.18 5.91 6.08 0.17 1.04 1.21 — 19,124 19,124 1.12 1.24 19,546 Area 13.2 0.72 23.5 0.04 1.70 — 1.70 1.64 — 1.64 280 581 860 1.32 < 0.005 894 Energy 0.17 3.05 2.13 0.02 0.24 — 0.24 0.24 — 0.24 — 11,510 11,510 0.81 0.07 11,550 Water — — — — — — — — — — 48.8 156 205 5.01 0.12 366
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 748 0.00 748 74.7 0.00 2,616
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 161
Total 29.4 17.7 105 0.25 2.11 5.91 8.02 2.05 1.04 3.09 1,076 31,371 32,447 83.0 1.42 35,132 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.93 2.53 14.5 0.03 0.03 1.08 1.11 0.03 0.19 0.22 — 3,166 3,166 0.19 0.20 3,236 Area 2.40 0.13 4.30 0.01 0.31 — 0.31 0.30 — 0.30 46.3 96.1 142 0.22 < 0.005 148 Energy 0.03 0.56 0.39 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 1,906 1,906 0.13 0.01 1,912 Water — — — — — — — — — — 8.08 25.8 33.9 0.83 0.02 60.6 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 124 0.00 124 12.4 0.00 433
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 26.6
Total 5.37 3.22 19.2 0.05 0.39 1.08 1.46 0.37 0.19 0.56 178 5,194 5,372 13.7 0.24 5,817
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
12 / 55
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.07 39.9 28.3 0.05 1.12 — 1.12 1.02 — 1.02 — 5,296 5,296 0.21 0.04 5,314 Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 7.67 7.67 — 3.94 3.94 — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.07 39.9 28.3 0.05 1.12 — 1.12 1.02 — 1.02 — 5,296 5,296 0.21 0.04 5,314 Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 7.67 7.67 — 3.94 3.94 — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.07 2.73 1.94 < 0.005 0.08 — 0.08 0.07 — 0.07 — 363 363 0.01 < 0.005 364 Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.53 0.53 — 0.27 0.27 — — — — — —
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
13 / 55
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.50 0.35 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 60.1 60.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 60.3 Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.10 0.10 — 0.05 0.05 — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.06 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 153 153 0.01 0.01 156 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.08 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 136 136 0.01 0.01 138 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.64 9.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.78 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.60 1.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.62 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
14 / 55
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.33 48.8 35.3 0.06 1.36 — 1.36 1.23 — 1.23 — 6,598 6,598 0.27 0.05 6,621 Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 3.61 3.61 — 1.43 1.43 — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.22 8.03 5.81 0.01 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 — 1,085 1,085 0.04 0.01 1,088 Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.59 0.59 — 0.23 0.23 — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.04 1.47 1.06 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 180 180 0.01 < 0.005 180
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
15 / 55
Dust From — — — — — 0.11 0.11 — 0.04 0.04 — — — — — —
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.07 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 175 175 0.01 0.01 178 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.16 10.5 2.30 0.06 0.17 2.32 2.48 0.17 0.63 0.80 — 8,791 8,791 0.07 1.36 9,220 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 26.4 26.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 26.8 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.03 1.81 0.38 0.01 0.03 0.38 0.40 0.03 0.10 0.13 — 1,446 1,446 0.01 0.22 1,514 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.38 4.38 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.44 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.33 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 239 239 < 0.005 0.04 251
3.5. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
16 / 55
Daily,————————————————
Summer
(Max)
Off-Road
Equipment
0.62 18.9 14.3 0.02 0.69— 0.69 0.64— 0.64— 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.62 18.9 14.3 0.02 0.69— 0.69 0.64— 0.64— 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.22 6.80 5.15 0.01 0.25— 0.25 0.23— 0.23— 863 863 0.04 0.01 866 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.04 1.24 0.94 < 0.005 0.05— 0.05 0.04— 0.04— 143 143 0.01 < 0.005 143 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
————————————————
Worker 1.34 0.93 14.3 0.00 0.00 1.87 1.87 0.00 0.45 0.45— 2,260 2,260 0.11 0.08 2,296 Vendor 0.06 1.36 0.67 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.20 0.01 0.05 0.06— 778 778 0.01 0.11 814 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
17 / 55
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Worker 1.17 1.15 10.9 0.00 0.00 1.87 1.87 0.00 0.45 0.45 — 2,000 2,000 0.13 0.08 2,028 Vendor 0.05 1.44 0.70 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.20 0.01 0.05 0.06 — 780 780 0.01 0.11 814 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.43 0.38 4.10 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.66 0.00 0.16 0.16 — 747 747 0.04 0.03 758 Vendor 0.02 0.50 0.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 280 280 < 0.005 0.04 293 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 124 124 0.01 < 0.005 126 Vendor < 0.005 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 46.4 46.4 < 0.005 0.01 48.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.62 18.9 14.3 0.02 0.69 — 0.69 0.64 — 0.64 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
18 / 55
Off-Road
Equipment
0.62 18.9 14.3 0.02 0.69— 0.69 0.64— 0.64— 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.44 13.5 10.2 0.02 0.49— 0.49 0.46— 0.46— 1,713 1,713 0.07 0.01 1,719 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.08 2.46 1.86 < 0.005 0.09— 0.09 0.08— 0.08— 284 284 0.01 < 0.005 285 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
————————————————
Worker 1.26 0.86 13.1 0.00 0.00 1.87 1.87 0.00 0.45 0.45— 2,211 2,211 0.11 0.08 2,246 Vendor 0.05 1.31 0.65 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.20 0.01 0.05 0.06— 764 764 0.01 0.11 799 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
————————————————
Worker 1.04 1.07 10.0 0.00 0.00 1.87 1.87 0.00 0.45 0.45— 1,958 1,958 0.13 0.08 1,986 Vendor 0.04 1.39 0.68 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.20 0.01 0.05 0.06— 766 766 0.01 0.11 798 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
————————————————
Worker 0.76 0.66 7.46 0.00 0.00 1.32 1.32 0.00 0.32 0.32— 1,450 1,450 0.08 0.06 1,472 Vendor 0.03 0.97 0.47 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.04— 546 546 0.01 0.08 570
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
19 / 55
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.14 0.12 1.36 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 240 240 0.01 0.01 244 Vendor 0.01 0.18 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 90.5 90.5 < 0.005 0.01 94.4 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.62 18.9 14.3 0.02 0.69 — 0.69 0.64 — 0.64 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.62 18.9 14.3 0.02 0.69 — 0.69 0.64 — 0.64 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.35 10.7 8.09 0.01 0.39 — 0.39 0.36 — 0.36 — 1,356 1,356 0.05 0.01 1,360 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
20 / 55
Off-Road
Equipment
0.06 1.95 1.48 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 224 224 0.01 < 0.005 225 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.10 0.72 12.0 0.00 0.00 1.87 1.87 0.00 0.45 0.45 — 2,164 2,164 0.11 0.08 2,197 Vendor 0.05 1.27 0.62 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.20 0.01 0.05 0.06 — 750 750 0.01 0.11 784 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.97 0.94 9.17 0.00 0.00 1.87 1.87 0.00 0.45 0.45 — 1,917 1,917 0.06 0.08 1,943 Vendor 0.04 1.36 0.65 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.20 0.01 0.05 0.06 — 752 752 0.01 0.11 784 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.56 0.48 5.41 0.00 0.00 1.04 1.04 0.00 0.25 0.25 — 1,124 1,124 0.03 0.05 1,141 Vendor 0.03 0.74 0.36 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 425 425 0.01 0.06 443 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.09 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 186 186 < 0.005 0.01 189 Vendor < 0.005 0.14 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 70.3 70.3 < 0.005 0.01 73.4 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.11. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
21 / 55
Onsite————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.50 13.3 10.6 0.01 0.58— 0.58 0.54— 0.54— 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 1,516 Paving 0.82———————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.07 1.82 1.45 < 0.005 0.08— 0.08 0.07— 0.07— 207 207 0.01 < 0.005 208 Paving 0.11———————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.33 0.27 < 0.005 0.01— 0.01 0.01— 0.01— 34.3 34.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 34.4 Paving 0.02———————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
————————————————
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03— 111 111 < 0.005 < 0.005 113
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
22 / 55
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.62 2.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.66 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.13. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.05 1.09 0.96 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 134 Architectu
ral
Coatings
53.3 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
23 / 55
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.05 1.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.05 Architectu
ral
Coatings
0.42 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.17 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.17 Architectu
ral
Coatings
0.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.19 0.19 1.83 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.09 0.09 — 383 383 0.01 0.02 389 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.11 3.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.16 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.52 0.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.52
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
24 / 55
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.15. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.05 1.09 0.96 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 134 Architectu
ral
Coatings
53.3 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.14 0.12 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 16.7 16.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.8 Architectu
ral
Coatings
6.68 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.77 2.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.78
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
25 / 55
Architectu
Coatings
1.22 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.18 0.17 1.69 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.09 0.09 — 376 376 0.01 0.02 381 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 48.8 48.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 49.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.08 8.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 8.19 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
26 / 55
Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Medical
Office
Building
4.77 3.39 22.4 0.05 0.05 1.51 1.55 0.04 0.27 0.31 — 5,169 5,169 0.27 0.31 5,283 Hotel 2.34 1.66 11.0 0.02 0.02 0.74 0.76 0.02 0.13 0.15 — 2,532 2,532 0.13 0.15 2,588 Junior
College
(2yr)
2.18 1.55 10.2 0.02 0.02 0.69 0.71 0.02 0.12 0.14 — 2,367 2,367 0.12 0.14 2,419 Congregat
e
Care
(Assisted
Living)
2.31 1.77 11.9 0.03 0.02 0.85 0.87 0.02 0.15 0.17 — 2,886 2,886 0.13 0.17 2,947 Apartment
s
Mid Rise
2.01 1.54 10.3 0.02 0.02 0.74 0.76 0.02 0.13 0.15 — 2,507 2,507 0.12 0.14 2,560 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
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 Parking
Lot
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 Strip Mall 4.40 3.13 20.6 0.05 0.04 1.39 1.43 0.04 0.24 0.28 — 4,773 4,773 0.25 0.29 4,878 Total 18.0 13.0 86.4 0.20 0.18 5.91 6.08 0.17 1.04 1.21 — 20,234 20,234 1.02 1.20 20,676 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Medical
Office
Building
4.17 3.83 21.8 0.05 0.05 1.51 1.55 0.04 0.27 0.31 — 4,775 4,775 0.33 0.33 4,883 Hotel 2.04 1.88 10.7 0.02 0.02 0.74 0.76 0.02 0.13 0.15 — 2,339 2,339 0.16 0.16 2,392
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
27 / 55
Junior 1.91 1.75 9.98 0.02 0.02 0.69 0.71 0.02 0.12 0.14— 2,187 2,187 0.15 0.15 2,236 College
(2yr)
Congregat e
Care
(Assisted
Living)
2.03 2.01 11.3 0.03 0.02 0.85 0.87 0.02 0.15 0.17— 2,663 2,663 0.16 0.18 2,720 Apartment s
Mid Rise
1.76 1.74 9.79 0.02 0.02 0.74 0.76 0.02 0.13 0.15— 2,314 2,314 0.14 0.15 2,363 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
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 Parking
Lot
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 Strip Mall 3.85 3.54 20.1 0.04 0.04 1.39 1.43 0.04 0.24 0.28— 4,409 4,409 0.30 0.31 4,508 Total 15.8 14.8 83.6 0.18 0.18 5.91 6.08 0.17 1.04 1.21— 18,687 18,687 1.24 1.28 19,102 Annual————————————————
Medical
Office
Building
0.78 0.66 3.77 0.01 0.01 0.27 0.28 0.01 0.05 0.06— 809 809 0.05 0.05 827 Hotel 0.38 0.32 1.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 0.14 < 0.005 0.02 0.03— 396 396 0.02 0.03 405 Junior
College
(2yr)
0.36 0.30 1.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 0.13 < 0.005 0.02 0.03— 370 370 0.02 0.02 379 Congregat e
Care
(Assisted
Living)
0.38 0.34 1.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 0.16 < 0.005 0.03 0.03— 451 451 0.02 0.03 461 Apartment s
Mid Rise
0.33 0.30 1.71< 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 0.14 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 — 392 392 0.02 0.02 400
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
28 / 55
Other 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 Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
Parking
Lot
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 Strip Mall 0.72 0.61 3.48 0.01 0.01 0.25 0.26 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 747 747 0.05 0.05 764 Total 2.93 2.53 14.5 0.03 0.03 1.08 1.11 0.03 0.19 0.22 — 3,166 3,166 0.19 0.20 3,236
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Medical
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 2,034 2,034 0.13 0.02 2,042
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — 2,046 2,046 0.13 0.02 2,053 Junior
College
(2yr)
— — — — — — — — — — — 533 533 0.03 < 0.005 535
Congregat
e
Care
(Assisted
Living)
— — — — — — — — — — — 1,023 1,023 0.06 0.01 1,027
Apartment
s
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 662 662 0.04 < 0.005 665
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
29 / 55
Parking
Lot
——————————— 870 870 0.05 0.01 873
Strip Mall——————————— 623 623 0.04 < 0.005 625
Total——————————— 7,790 7,790 0.48 0.06 7,820
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
————————————————
Medical
Office
Building
——————————— 2,034 2,034 0.13 0.02 2,042
Hotel——————————— 2,046 2,046 0.13 0.02 2,053
Junior
College
(2yr)
——————————— 533 533 0.03 < 0.005 535
Congregat e
Care
(Assisted
Living)
——————————— 1,023 1,023 0.06 0.01 1,027
Apartment s
Mid Rise
——————————— 662 662 0.04< 0.005 665
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking
Lot
——————————— 870 870 0.05 0.01 873
Strip Mall——————————— 623 623 0.04 < 0.005 625
Total——————————— 7,790 7,790 0.48 0.06 7,820
Annual————————————————
Medical
Office
Building
——————————— 337 337 0.02 < 0.005 338
Hotel——————————— 339 339 0.02 < 0.005 340
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
30 / 55
Junior
College
(2yr)
— — — — — — — — — — — 88.3 88.3 0.01 < 0.005 88.6
Congregat
e
Care
(Assisted
Living)
— — — — — — — — — — — 169 169 0.01 < 0.005 170
Apartment
s
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 110 110 0.01 < 0.005 110
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 144 144 0.01 < 0.005 145
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 103 103 0.01 < 0.005 104 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1,290 1,290 0.08 0.01 1,295
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Medical
Office
Building
0.04 0.71 0.60 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 852 852 0.08 < 0.005 854 Hotel 0.04 0.81 0.68 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 967 967 0.09 < 0.005 970 Junior
College
(2yr)
0.02 0.42 0.35 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 502 502 0.04 < 0.005 503
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
31 / 55
Congregat 0.04 0.63 0.27 < 0.005 0.05— 0.05 0.05— 0.05— 801 801 0.07 < 0.005 803 e
Care
(Assisted
Living)
Apartment s
Mid Rise
0.02 0.41 0.17< 0.005 0.03— 0.03 0.03— 0.03— 519 519 0.05 < 0.005 520 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
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 Parking
Lot
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 Strip Mall < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01— 0.01 0.01— 0.01— 80.4 80.4 0.01 < 0.005 80.6 Total 0.17 3.05 2.13 0.02 0.24— 0.24 0.24— 0.24— 3,720 3,720 0.33 0.01 3,730 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
————————————————
Medical
Office
Building
0.04 0.71 0.60 < 0.005 0.05— 0.05 0.05— 0.05— 852 852 0.08 < 0.005 854 Hotel 0.04 0.81 0.68 < 0.005 0.06— 0.06 0.06— 0.06— 967 967 0.09 < 0.005 970 Junior
College
(2yr)
0.02 0.42 0.35 < 0.005 0.03— 0.03 0.03— 0.03— 502 502 0.04 < 0.005 503 Congregat e
Care
(Assisted
Living)
0.04 0.63 0.27 < 0.005 0.05— 0.05 0.05— 0.05— 801 801 0.07 < 0.005 803 Apartment s
Mid Rise
0.02 0.41 0.17< 0.005 0.03— 0.03 0.03— 0.03— 519 519 0.05 < 0.005 520 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
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
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
32 / 55
Parking
Lot
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 Strip Mall < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 80.4 80.4 0.01 < 0.005 80.6 Total 0.17 3.05 2.13 0.02 0.24 — 0.24 0.24 — 0.24 — 3,720 3,720 0.33 0.01 3,730 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Medical
Office
Building
0.01 0.13 0.11 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 141 141 0.01 < 0.005 141 Hotel 0.01 0.15 0.12 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 160 160 0.01 < 0.005 161 Junior
College
(2yr)
< 0.005 0.08 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 83.0 83.0 0.01 < 0.005 83.3 Congregat
e
Care
(Assisted
Living)
0.01 0.12 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 133 133 0.01 < 0.005 133 Apartment
s
Mid Rise
< 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 85.9 85.9 0.01 < 0.005 86.1 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
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 Parking
Lot
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 Strip Mall < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.3 13.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.3 Total 0.03 0.56 0.39 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 616 616 0.05 < 0.005 618
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
33 / 55
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 5.80 2.74 52.5 0.18 7.53 — 7.53 7.26 — 7.26 1,245 2,411 3,655 5.86 < 0.005 3,803 Consumer
Products
9.68 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings
0.73 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipmen
t
2.92 0.22 23.8 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.03 — 0.03 — 79.2 79.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 79.5 Total 19.1 2.96 76.3 0.18 7.55 — 7.55 7.28 — 7.28 1,245 2,490 3,735 5.87 0.01 3,883 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 5.80 2.74 52.5 0.18 7.53 — 7.53 7.26 — 7.26 1,245 2,411 3,655 5.86 < 0.005 3,803 Consumer
Products
9.68 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings
0.73 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 16.2 2.74 52.5 0.18 7.53 — 7.53 7.26 — 7.26 1,245 2,411 3,655 5.86 < 0.005 3,803 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.24 0.11 2.15 0.01 0.31 — 0.31 0.30 — 0.30 46.3 89.7 136 0.22 < 0.005 141 Consumer
Products
1.77 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings
0.13 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipmen
t
0.26 0.02 2.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.47 6.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.49
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
34 / 55
Total 2.40 0.13 4.30 0.01 0.31 — 0.31 0.30 — 0.30 46.3 96.1 142 0.22 < 0.005 148
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Medical
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 17.4 52.1 69.5 1.79 0.04 127
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — 5.10 15.3 20.4 0.52 0.01 37.2 Junior
College
(2yr)
— — — — — — — — — — 3.29 9.86 13.1 0.34 0.01 24.0
Congregat
e
Care
(Assisted
Living)
— — — — — — — — — — 10.4 31.2 41.5 1.07 0.03 75.9
Apartment
s
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 6.73 20.2 26.9 0.69 0.02 49.1
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 9.65 9.65 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.69 Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — 5.89 17.6 23.5 0.61 0.01 43.0 Total — — — — — — — — — — 48.8 156 205 5.01 0.12 366
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
35 / 55
Daily,————————————————
Winter
(Max)
Medical
Office
Building
—————————— 17.4 52.1 69.5 1.79 0.04 127
Hotel—————————— 5.10 15.3 20.4 0.52 0.01 37.2
Junior
College
(2yr)
—————————— 3.29 9.86 13.1 0.34 0.01 24.0
Congregat e
Care
(Assisted
Living)
—————————— 10.4 31.2 41.5 1.07 0.03 75.9
Apartment s
Mid Rise
—————————— 6.73 20.2 26.9 0.69 0.02 49.1
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
—————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking
Lot
—————————— 0.00 9.65 9.65 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.69
Strip Mall—————————— 5.89 17.6 23.5 0.61 0.01 43.0
Total—————————— 48.8 156 205 5.01 0.12 366
Annual————————————————
Medical
Office
Building
—————————— 2.88 8.62 11.5 0.30 0.01 21.0
Hotel—————————— 0.85 2.53 3.38 0.09 < 0.005 6.17
Junior
College
(2yr)
—————————— 0.54 1.63 2.18 0.06 < 0.005 3.97
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
36 / 55
Congregat — — — — — — — — — — 1.72 5.16 6.88 0.18 < 0.005 12.6 e
Care
(Assisted
Living)
Apartment
s
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 1.11 3.34 4.45 0.11 < 0.005 8.13
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 1.60 1.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.60 Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — 0.98 2.92 3.90 0.10 < 0.005 7.12 Total — — — — — — — — — — 8.08 25.8 33.9 0.83 0.02 60.6
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Medical
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 421 0.00 421 42.1 0.00 1,472
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — 31.0 0.00 31.0 3.10 0.00 108
Junior
College
(2yr)
— — — — — — — — — — 24.5 0.00 24.5 2.45 0.00 85.8
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
37 / 55
Congregat—————————— 212 0.00 212 21.2 0.00 742
e
Care
(Assisted
Living)
Apartment s
Mid Rise
—————————— 35.9 0.00 35.9 3.59 0.00 126
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
—————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking
Lot
—————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Strip Mall—————————— 23.5 0.00 23.5 2.35 0.00 82.2
Total—————————— 748 0.00 748 74.7 0.00 2,616
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
————————————————
Medical
Office
Building
—————————— 421 0.00 421 42.1 0.00 1,472
Hotel—————————— 31.0 0.00 31.0 3.10 0.00 108
Junior
College
(2yr)
—————————— 24.5 0.00 24.5 2.45 0.00 85.8
Congregat e
Care
(Assisted
Living)
—————————— 212 0.00 212 21.2 0.00 742
Apartment s
Mid Rise
—————————— 35.9 0.00 35.9 3.59 0.00 126
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
—————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
38 / 55
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — 23.5 0.00 23.5 2.35 0.00 82.2 Total — — — — — — — — — — 748 0.00 748 74.7 0.00 2,616
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Medical
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 69.7 0.00 69.7 6.96 0.00 244
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — 5.13 0.00 5.13 0.51 0.00 17.9 Junior
College
(2yr)
— — — — — — — — — — 4.06 0.00 4.06 0.41 0.00 14.2
Congregat
e
Care
(Assisted
Living)
— — — — — — — — — — 35.1 0.00 35.1 3.51 0.00 123
Apartment
s
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 5.94 0.00 5.94 0.59 0.00 20.8
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — 3.89 0.00 3.89 0.39 0.00 13.6 Total — — — — — — — — — — 124 0.00 124 12.4 0.00 433
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
39 / 55
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
————————————————
Medical
Office
Building
——————————————— 1.85
Hotel——————————————— 156
Junior
College
(2yr)
——————————————— 0.14
Congregat e
Care
(Assisted
Living)
——————————————— 1.57
Apartment s
Mid Rise
——————————————— 0.55
Strip Mall——————————————— 0.26
Total——————————————— 161
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
————————————————
Medical
Office
Building
——————————————— 1.85
Hotel——————————————— 156
Junior
College
(2yr)
——————————————— 0.14
Congregat e
Care
(Assisted
Living)
——————————————— 1.57
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
40 / 55
Apartment — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.55
s
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.26
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 161
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Medical
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.31
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 25.9
Junior
College
(2yr)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.02
Congregat
e
Care
(Assisted
Living)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.26
Apartment
s
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.09
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 26.6
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipmen
t
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
41 / 55
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipmen
t
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
42 / 55
Equipmen
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
43 / 55
Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequester
ed
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
44 / 55
Sequester — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequester
ed
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 3/4/2024 4/5/2024 5.00 25.0 — Grading Grading 4/8/2024 6/28/2024 5.00 60.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 7/1/2024 10/16/2026 5.00 600 — Paving Paving 10/19/2026 12/25/2026 5.00 50.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 12/28/2026 3/5/2027 5.00 50.0 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
45 / 55
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 2 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 2 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Tier 2 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Tier 2 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 2 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Scrapers Diesel Tier 2 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 2 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Tier 2 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Tier 2 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Tier 2 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 2 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Tier 2 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Tier 2 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Tier 2 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Tier 2 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Tier 2 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 10.6 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
46 / 55
Site Preparation Vendor — 3.50 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 10.6 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 3.50 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 125 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 258 10.6 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 65.3 3.50 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 10.6 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 3.50 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 51.6 10.6 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 3.50 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
47 / 55
Control Strategies Applied PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water unpaved roads twice daily 55% 55%
Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 25 mph 44% 44% Sweep paved roads once per month 9% 9%
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 404,941 134,980 373,208 124,403 56,558
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation — — 37.5 0.00 —
Grading — 60,000 180 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.6
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Medical Office Building 0.00 0%
Hotel 0.00 0%
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
48 / 55
Junior College (2yr) 0.00 0%
Congregate Care (Assisted Living) — 0%
Apartments Mid Rise — 0%
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 6.00 0%
Parking Lot 15.6 100%
Strip Mall 0.00 0%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2024 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2025 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Medical Office
Building
1,393 1,393 1,393 508,561 5,447 5,447 5,447 1,988,040
Hotel 683 683 683 249,113 2,668 2,668 2,668 973,818
Junior College (2yr) 638 638 638 232,888 2,494 2,494 2,494 910,395 Congregate Care
(Assisted Living)
663 663 663 242,006 3,069 3,069 3,069 1,120,102
Apartments Mid Rise 576 576 576 210,240 2,666 2,666 2,666 973,076 Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
49 / 55
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Strip Mall 1,287 1,287 1,287 469,573 5,029 5,029 5,029 1,835,629
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Congregate Care (Assisted Living) —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 70
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 70
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 7
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 7
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
Apartments Mid Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 45
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 45
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 5
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 5
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
50 / 55
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
404941.27499999997 134,980 373,208 124,403 56,558
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Medical Office Building 1,395,423 532 0.0330 0.0040 2,657,190 Hotel 1,403,506 532 0.0330 0.0040 3,016,789
Junior College (2yr) 365,853 532 0.0330 0.0040 1,564,872 Congregate Care (Assisted
Living)
701,757 532 0.0330 0.0040 2,499,095
Apartments Mid Rise 454,375 532 0.0330 0.0040 1,618,119 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Parking Lot 596,800 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Strip Mall 427,442 532 0.0330 0.0040 250,756
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
51 / 55
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Medical Office Building 9,072,870 0.00
Hotel 2,663,511 0.00
Junior College (2yr) 1,716,716 0.00
Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 5,426,108 0.00
Apartments Mid Rise 3,513,308 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 2,737,629
Strip Mall 3,074,010 0.00
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Medical Office Building 781 0.00
Hotel 57.5 0.00
Junior College (2yr) 45.5 0.00
Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 127 0.00
Apartments Mid Rise 21.5 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Strip Mall 43.6 0.00
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
52 / 55
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Medical Office Building Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.45 0.60 0.00 1.00
Medical Office Building Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Hotel Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
Hotel Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
Hotel Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Junior College (2yr) Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00
Junior College (2yr) Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Junior College (2yr) Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 < 0.005 1.00 0.00 1.00
Junior College (2yr) Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Congregate Care
(Assisted Living)
Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Congregate Care
(Assisted Living)
Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.22 0.60 0.00 1.00
Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Mid Rise Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
53 / 55
Strip Mall Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Strip Mall Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Strip Mall Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
— —
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
54 / 55
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Medical Office Building includes: a 22,525-square-foot ambulatory surgery center; a 12,445-square-foot specialty clinic; two 12,445-square-foot medical office buildings; and a 12,445-square-foot psychiatric health facility. Strip Mall includes 41,500 square feet of medical/commercial uses. Hotel includes a 100,000-square-foot, a four-story 105-room hotel with a conference center. Junior College includes a 35,000-square-foot nursing college. Congregate Care (Assisted Living) includes; a 54,611-square-foot skilled nursing facility; a 34,480-square-foot memory care facility; and a 34,380-square-foot assisted living facility. Mid-rise Apartment includes a three-story 90-unit multi-family apartment. Total project acreage is 39.23 acres. Assuming 10% of the project site would be landscaped.
Construction: Construction Phases Construction is anticipated to begin March 2024 and last approximately 3 years.
Construction: Off-Road Equipment Assuming the use of Tier 2 construction equipment.
Construction: Dust From Material Movement Over excavation would be between 30,000 and 60,000 cubic yards of soil; therefore, this analysis assumes up to 60,000 cubic yards of export.
Hanford Place Project Custom Report, 3/14/2023
55 / 55
Operations: Vehicle Data Assuming approximately 1,393 average daily trips (ADT) for the Medical Office Building land uses, 682 ADT for the hotel use, 638 ADT for the nursing college, 662 ADT for the assisted living uses, 576 ADT for the apartments, and 1,287 ADT for the Strip Mapp land uses based on the project's trip generation and taking into account 10% internal trips.
INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) B-1
APPENDIX B
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
B P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -2 This page intentionally left blank
June 2021
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
HANFORD PLACE PROJECT
CITY OF HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
June 2021
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
HANFORD PLACE PROJECT
CITY OF HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
Submitted to:
Epic Management Group
44045 Margarita Road, Suite 100
Temecula, CA 92592
Prepared for:
City of Hanford
317 N. Douty Street
Hanford, California 93230
Prepared by:
LSA Associates, Inc.
285 South Street, Suite P
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
(805) 782-0745
LSA Project No. EPI2001
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
J UNE 2021
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
\\acorp04\projects\EPI2001 Hanford Place\Bio\EPI2001_Hanford Biological Assessment_06.22.21.docx «06/22/21» i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) prepared this biological resources assessment for the proposed Hanford Place Project (project) located between State Route 198 and the San Joaquin Valley Railroad in the City of Hanford, Kings County, California. The project consists of a medical and mixed-use development spanning approximately 40 acres. A total of 15 buildings are proposed, including medical outpatient clinic services, hotel and conference center, specialized education, retail, medical office, skilled nursing and assisted living, and multi-family residential uses, as well as an infiltration basin, associated open space, circulation and parking, and infrastructure improvements. The project site was historically used for agricultural but has remained fallow for many years. The site is located on the margin of urban portions of the City of Hanford with no connection to undisturbed or natural lands.
In March 2020, LSA biologists conducted a literature review and records search to identify the existence and potential for occurrence of sensitive or special-status plant and animal species in the vicinity of the project site. Federal and state lists of sensitive species were also examined. Current electronic database records reviewed included the California Natural Diversity Database, California Native Plant Society’s Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory. Historic and current aerial imagery, existing environmental reports for developments in the project vicinity, regional habitat conservation plans, and local land use policies related to biological resources were also reviewed. A field survey covering the project site was conducted on April 27, 2020.
With the exception of the Peoples Ditch, the project site is strictly upland in nature with welldrained soils and vegetation consisting of nonnative grassland with patches of mixed herbaceous ruderal/invasive species and bare ground in several areas. Ongoing soil disturbance and the resulting competitive exclusion by invasive nonnative plants limit the potential for native flora to occur in the project site. No native or special-status vegetation communities exist on the project site. No special-status plant species were observed during the field survey and none are expected to occur due to historical and ongoing anthropogenic disturbances.
Habitat in the project site is considered low quality with respect to most of the regionally-occurring special-status animal species, and no special-status species were observed during the field survey.
However, two special-status animal species—San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)—have sat least a low potential to occur in the project site due to the presence of suitable habitat and known occurrence records in the project vicinity. The project site also contains foraging habitat for certain raptors such as Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) but suitable tree-nesting habitat is generally absent from the project site. Suitable avian nesting habitat on the project site is limited to that which supports ground-nesting species such as Savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) and other birds that may nest in the annual herbaceous cover.
With the implementation of recommended impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures—including pre-construction surveys and compliance with applicable regulatory requirements—there would be no significant impacts to special-status biological resources resulting from the project.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
J UNE 2021
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
\\acorp04\projects\EPI2001 Hanford Place\Bio\EPI2001_Hanford Biological Assessment_06.22.21.docx «06/22/21» ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 Project Description........................................................................................................................ 1 Project Setting ............................................................................................................................... 2 METHODS................................................................................................................... 3 Literature Review and Records Search ......................................................................................... 3 Field Survey ................................................................................................................................... 4 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................... 5 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types .......................................................................... 5 Wild oats and annual brome grassland (Avena spp. - Bromus spp. Herbaceous Semi-Natural Alliance).................................................................................................................................................... 6 Disturbed / Barren ................................................................................................................................... 6 Developed ................................................................................................................................................ 7 Soils………………… ............................................................................................................................ 7 Nord complex, 0 to 2 Percent Slopes, MLRA 17....................................................................................... 7 Special-Status Biological Resources .............................................................................................. 7 Special-Status Natural Communities........................................................................................................ 7 Special-Status Plants................................................................................................................................ 8 Special-Status Animals............................................................................................................................. 8 Critical Habitat.......................................................................................................................................... 9 Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources.............................................................................................................. 9 Wildlife Movement and Habitat Connectivity........................................................................................10 Regional Habitat Conservation Plans and Local Policies........................................................................10 IMPACT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES ............................ 11 Special-Status natural communities............................................................................................ 11 Special-Status Species................................................................................................................. 11 Critical Habitat............................................................................................................................. 14 Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources................................................................................................. 14 Wildlife Movement and Habitat Connectivity............................................................................. 15 Regional Habitat Conservation Plans and Local Policies............................................................. 15 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 17 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 18 TABLES
Table A: Vegetation and Land Cover Types Within the Project site.......................................................................6
ATTACHMENTS
Appendix A (Figures), Appendix B (Plant Species Observed), Appendix C (Representative Site Photos), Appendix D (Regional Special-Status Species)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
J UNE 2021
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
\\acorp04\projects\EPI2001 Hanford Place\Bio\EPI2001_Hanford Biological Assessment_06.22.21.docx «06/22/21» 1
INTRODUCTION
LSA has prepared this Biological Resources Assessment for the proposed Hanford Place Project (project) located between State Route 198 and the San Joaquin Valley Railroad in the City of Hanford (City), Kings County, California (refer to Figure 1, Project Location; all figures are provided in Appendix A). The purpose of this report is to describe and document biological resources—including sensitive and special-status species—known to occur or with the potential to occur on the proposed project site. This technical information is provided for project planning purposes and review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), California Endangered Species Act (CESA), the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), and other pertinent regulations.
The Biological Resources Assessment conducted for the project involved the following components:
• Reviewing existing relevant scientific literature and other pertinent information related to the survey area;
• Creating a list of regionally occurring special-status species determined to have the potential to occur on or in the vicinity of the project site;
• Characterizing the vegetation communities present within the survey area; • Evaluating the potential for the occurrence of special-status plant and wildlife species within the survey area;
• Assessing the potential for the project to adversely impact existing biological resources; and • Recommending avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to avoid or minimize any potentially significant project-related impacts to biological resources.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project involves a medical and mixed use development consisting of medical facility, skilled nursing, assisted living, retail and multi-family units on approximately 40 acres of vacant land located between State Route 198 and the San Joaquin Valley Railroad in the City of Hanford (Figure 2). Once constructed, and extension of 5th Street would run through the project site in an east/west direction and Campus Drive would be extended south into the site, with a roundabout constructed near the center portion of the site. Proposed road extensions and improvements would be dedicated as public right of way. As part of the project, Glendale Avenue would also be realigned and any portion of existing right of way not used would be abandoned. In addition, an open segment of Peoples Ditch (a constructed irrigation canal) that currently runs through the project site would be converted to an underground culvert.
The General Plan and zoning designation for the project site is currently Highway Commercial (C-H).
The project would amend the General Plan and require a rezone to a combination of Office, Medium- or High-Density Residential and Regional or Highway Commercial.
The project would include the following: a 22,525-square-foot ambulatory surgery center; a 12,445- square-foot specialty clinic; two 12,445-square-foot medical office buildings; a 12,445-square-foot psychiatric health facility; a 10,000-square-foot, a four-story 105-room hotel with a conference
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
J UNE 2021
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
\\acorp04\projects\EPI2001 Hanford Place\Bio\EPI2001_Hanford Biological Assessment_06.22.21.docx «06/22/21» 2 center and pool; a 35,000-square-foot nursing college; four 15,55-square-foot strip retail buildings; two 15,000-square-foot retail/drive-through/medical commercial buildings; a 54,611-square-foot skilled nursing facility; a 34,480-square-foot memory care facility; a three-story 90-unit multi-family apartment; two 11,000 medical/commercial buildings; and a 5-acre bio infiltration basin. In addition, the project would provide 1,466 parking spaces throughout the project site. Figure 3 shows the project site plan.
Regional access to the site is provided by State Route 198, which is borders the southern portion of the project site and is located approximately 0.5 miles from the project site entrance. Site access would be provided by one main driveway along Campus Drive, as well as Fifth Street on the east side of the project site that would extend on the existing street alignment. The project would not require any work within undeveloped lands outside of the approximately 40-acre project site.
PROJECT SETTING
The project site is located along the south central portion of the San Joaquin Valley floor in the Kings County. Specifically, the project site is located on four legal parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 012- 290-042, 012-290-054, 011-060-007, and 011-060-080) in the northeastern quarter of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Hanford, California, 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map (refer to Figure 1). The “project site” discussed in this report refers to all areas within the four legal parcels described above (totaling approximately 40 acres) and includes all areas where temporary and permanent ground disturbance would occur.
The project site is currently fallow and disturbed with no existing structures (Figure 2). The site was previously used for agriculture, consistent with many of the surrounding lands in the region.
According to historic aerial imagery, the project site has remained in its current condition for more than 20 years. Adjacent parcels consist mostly of low-density residential and commercial developments, with several undeveloped lots located to the north of the project site. Recent developments along the margins of the City of Hanford and expansion into ranch land settlements have brought increased urban development throughout lands previously used for agriculture. Some lands in the vicinity of the project site are fallow or active agricultural lands; however, most of the lands are developed and are a mixture of school, residential, commercial, retail, and industrial uses.
There are no undisturbed open spaces in the vicinity of the project site.
The project site is located within the San Joaquin Valley Sub-region of the California Floristic Province (Baldwin, et al. 2012) and within the Sand Slough watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code #180300122002). The project site is flat with almost no topographic variation and is at approximately 228 feet (69 meters) above mean sea level in elevation. An open segment of Peoples Ditch (a constructed irrigation canal) is located within the project site, but there are no natural drainage features or riparian areas present in the project site. Extensive soil disturbance from foot traffic and vehicles is evident throughout the site, and the site appears to be regularly disked for vegetation control. Several homeless encampments were present in multiple portions of the project site during the April 2020 site survey.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
J UNE 2021
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
\\acorp04\projects\EPI2001 Hanford Place\Bio\EPI2001_Hanford Biological Assessment_06.22.21.docx «06/22/21» 3
METHODS
LITERATURE REVIEW AND RECORDS SEARCH
LSA Biologist Kelly McDonald conducted a literature review and records search on March 31, 2020, to identify the existence and potential for occurrence of sensitive or special-status1 plant and animal species in the vicinity of the project site. Federal and State lists of sensitive species were also examined. Current electronic database records reviewed included the following:
• California Natural Diversity Data Base information (CNDDB – RareFind 5), which is administered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), formerly known as the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). This database covers sensitive plant and animal species as well as sensitive natural communities that occur in California. Records from nine USGS quadrangles surrounding the project site (Riverdale, Laton, Burris Park, Lemoore, Hanford, Remnoy, Stratford, Guernsey, and Waukena) were obtained from this database to inform the field survey.
• California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants, which utilizes four specific categories or “lists” of sensitive plant species to assist with the conservation of rare or endangered botanical resources. All of the plants constituting California Rare Plant Ranks 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B are intended to meet the status definitions of “threatened” or “endangered” in CESA and the California Department of Fish and Game Code, and are considered by CNPS to be eligible for State listing. At the discretion of the CEQA Lead Agency, impacts to these species may be analyzed as such, pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Sections 15125(c) and 15380. Plants in Rank 3 (limited information; review list), Rank 4 (limited distribution; watch list), or that are considered Locally Unusual and Significant may be analyzed under CEQA if there is sufficient information to assess potential significant impacts. Records from the nine USGS quadrangles surrounding the project site were obtained from this database to inform the field survey.
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) Online System, which lists all proposed, candidate, threatened, and endangered species managed by the Endangered Species Program of the USFWS that have the potential to occur on or near a particular site. This database also lists all known critical habitats, national wildlife refuges, and migratory birds that could potentially be impacted by activities from a proposed project. An IPaC Trust Resource Report (USFWS 2020a) was generated for the project area.
1 For the purposed of this report, the term “special-status species” refers to those species that are listed or proposed for listing under the CESA and/or FESA, California Fully Protected Species, California Species of Special Concern, and California Special Animals. It should be noted that “Species of Special Concern” and “California Special Animal” are administrative designations made by the CDFW and carry no formal legal protection status. However, Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that these species should be included in an analysis of project impacts if they can be shown to meet the criteria of sensitivity outlined therein.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
J UNE 2021
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
\\acorp04\projects\EPI2001 Hanford Place\Bio\EPI2001_Hanford Biological Assessment_06.22.21.docx «06/22/21» 4 • Designated and Proposed USFWS Critical Habitat Polygons were reviewed to determine whether critical habitat has been designated or proposed within or in the vicinity of the project site (USFWS 2020b).
• The USFWS National Wetlands Inventory was reviewed to determine whether any wetlands or surface waters of the United States have been previously-identified in the survey area (USFWS 2020c).
• eBird: eBird is a real-time, online checklist program launched in 2002 by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and National Audubon Society. It provides rich data sources for basic information on bird abundance and distribution at a variety of spatial and temporal scales. eBird occurrence records for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) from a 5 mile radius around the project site were reviewed in May 2020 (eBird 2020).
In addition to the databases listed above, historic and current aerial imagery, existing environmental reports for developments in the project vicinity, and local land use policies related to biological resources were reviewed.
FIELD SURVEY
A general biological survey of the project site was conducted by LSA Biologist Kelly McDonald on April 27, 2020. The project site was surveyed on foot, and all biological resources observed were noted and mapped. Suitable habitat for any species of interest or concern was duly noted, and general site conditions were photographed (Appendix C, Site Photos). The field survey took place on a clear sunny morning with weather conditions conducive to the detection of plant and animal species.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
J UNE 2021
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
\\acorp04\projects\EPI2001 Hanford Place\Bio\EPI2001_Hanford Biological Assessment_06.22.21.docx «06/22/21» 5
RESULTS
This section summarizes the environmental setting and provides further analysis of the data collected in the field. Discussions regarding the existing project site conditions, soils, vegetation communities, potentially occurring special-status biological resources, and habitat connectivity are presented below.
The project site consists of flat, undeveloped parcels supporting nonnative grassland and other invasive plant species. Ruderal and nonnative grassland vegetation existing on the site appears to be regularly maintained. There is one tree, tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima; a nonnative species), within the project site. Much of the soil and vegetation within the project site is disturbed from existing roadways in the immediate vicinity, off-highway vehicles, homeless encampment, and human foot traffic. Worn foot paths, litter, and trampling are evident throughout the project site.
Habitat within the project site is considered low quality with respect to most of the special-status animal species identified during the literature review and the project site is not expected to support any special-status plant species (refer to Appendix D). Wildlife species observed during the April 2020 field survey include: rock pigeon (Columba livia; nonnative species), Savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis), western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), common raven (Corvus corax), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris; nonnative species), western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), Sierran tree frog (Pseudacris sierra), California toad (Anaxyrus boreas halophilus; tadpoles) and California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi).
No riparian habitat exists in the project site or on adjacent parcels and there are no depressional wetlands (e.g., vernal pools) or natural drainage features within the project site. The project site does not serve as a wildlife nursery or as a wildlife migration corridor. Further details regarding specific biological resources are provided in the following subsections.
VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND LAND COVER TYPES
With the exception of an open portion of Peoples Ditch (an irrigation canal excavated in the late 1800’s), the project site is strictly upland in nature with dominant vegetation consisting of nonnative grassland with patches of mixed herbaceous ruderal/invasive species. Ongoing soil disturbance and the resulting competitive exclusion by invasive nonnative plants limit the potential for native flora to occur in the project site. No native or special-status vegetation communities exist in the project site.
The identification and characterizations of vegetation communities generally follow the plant community descriptions in the Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009). Anthropogenic areas are those areas that have been converted from their natural habitat to ones that are subject to ongoing human maintenance and disturbance; these areas include roads, road shoulders, and areas that are disturbed or maintained. The acreages of each vegetation community and land cover type occurring in the project site are shown in Table A, below. Representative photographs of the
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
J UNE 2021
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
\\acorp04\projects\EPI2001 Hanford Place\Bio\EPI2001_Hanford Biological Assessment_06.22.21.docx «06/22/21» 6 project site are presented in Appendix C, and Figure 4 provides a map of these vegetation and land cover types within the project site.
Table A: Vegetation and Land Cover Types Within the Project site Vegetation / Land Cover Type Acreage1
Wild oats and annual brome grasslands 38.51
Developed 0.17
Disturbed / Barren 1.10
Peoples Ditch – Irrigation Canal 0.51
Total 40.29 1 All acreages were calculated using geographic information system (GIS) measurements and are considered approximate.
A total of 36 vascular plant species were identified within the project site during the April 2020 field survey (refer to Appendix B). A total of 27 of these plant species (75 percent) represent nonnative taxa, reflecting a high level of disturbance within the project site.
Wild oats and annual brome grassland (Avena spp. - Bromus spp. Herbaceous Semi-Natural Alliance)
Disturbed nonnative wild oats and annual brome grassland comprises the majority of the project site. Wild oats and annual brome grasslands are often found in foothills, waste places, rangelands, and opening in woodlands. This alliance is dominated by invasive/pioneering nonnative grasses including slender oats (Avena barbata), ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), barely grasses (Hordeum spp), along with other nonnative/ruderal plant species such as Russian thistle (Salsola tragus). Less prevalent species at the time of survey included London rocket (Sisymbrium irio), cheeseweed mallow (Malva parviflora) and Mediterranean storks’ bill (Erodium malacoides).
The dominance of these nonnative weedy species is indicative of historical and recent soil disturbance. Native perennial shrubs are entirely absent from the project site, and the site appears to be regularly maintained.
Large tracts of annual grassland habitat provide foraging and/or breeding habitat for many wildlife species. Vacant lots in the vicinity of the project site provide suitable habitat for numerous invertebrate species (such as insects), many of which provide a food source for animals such as lizards, birds, and small mammals, which in turn serve as a prey base for larger predator animals, including snakes, raptors, and coyotes. Due to the extensive weed coverage of the wild oats and annual brome grassland within the project site, it is not expected to provide high-quality foraging or nesting habitat for many special-status wildlife species known to occur in the region.
Disturbed / Barren
Based on an analysis of historical aerial imagery and observations during the April 2020 site survey, vehicles regularly park and drive across portions of the site, specifically along the project site perimeter. Portions of the central survey area also appeared to be disturbed by off-highway vehicles (as evinced by tire tracks, ruts, etc.). These disturbed areas lacked vegetation or supported a sparse
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
J UNE 2021
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
\\acorp04\projects\EPI2001 Hanford Place\Bio\EPI2001_Hanford Biological Assessment_06.22.21.docx «06/22/21» 7 cover of ruderal vegetation, with annual nonnative grasses and Russian thistle being the most frequently encountered plant species. Several other invasive, pioneering plant species were also observed in these areas.
Developed
Developed sites consist of paved areas, buildings, and other areas that are cleared or graded for anthropogenic purposes. A small portion (0.17 acre) of the project site contains an existing paved road which is mapped as developed.
SOILS
According to the NRCS online soil survey of Kings County, the project site is primarily composed of Nord complex soils (99.3%) and the remaining are urban land (Figure 5). The Nord complex soil classification is discussed in greater detail below.
Nord complex, 0 to 2 Percent Slopes, MLRA 17
The parent material of this soil type is alluvium derived from igneous rock, occurring between 58 and 183 m in elevation. The drainage class of this soil type is well drained, and it is typically composed of fine sandy loam and stratified sandy loam to loam. Nord complex usually occurs on alluvial fans, and is used for growing irrigated field, forage, and row crops. When not irrigated, vegetation is typically annual grasses and forbs.
SPECIAL-STATUS BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The Hanford region supports various special-status natural communities, plants, and animals.
Appendix D provides tables that identify those special-status plant and animal species known to occur or that potentially occur in the vicinity of the project site (based on the literature review and experience in the region) and includes detailed information about each species’ habitat and distribution, State and Federal status designations, and probability of occurrence within the project site. As stated in the methodology section above, the background research included occurrence records from nine USGS topographic quadrangles surrounding the survey area. A nine USGS quadrangle search covers a large, variable geographic and topographic area containing numerous habitat types not found within or around the project site.
The following subsections provide specific discussions for special-status natural communities, plant and animal species, and habitats of concern (including critical habitat, jurisdictional aquatic resources, wildlife movement corridors, and regional and local habitat conservation plans).
Special-Status Natural Communities
The CNDDB search identified occurrences of two special-status natural (i.e., plant) communities within the nine-quad search area: Valley Sacaton Grassland and Valley Sink Scrub.
No special-status natural communities or conservation areas exist within the project site or in adjacent parcels. The project site is completely isolated and distant from all special-status natural communities that occur in the region.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
J UNE 2021
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
\\acorp04\projects\EPI2001 Hanford Place\Bio\EPI2001_Hanford Biological Assessment_06.22.21.docx «06/22/21» 8 Special-Status Plants
The literature review identified eight special-status plant species that are known to occur within a nine-quad radius of the project site (refer to Appendix D). The majority of the rare plant species that were identified in the databases have specialized habitat requirements (i.e., they occur on predominantly alkaline soils, woodland, riparian, or wetland habitats, etc.) that do not occur within the project site.
Historic anthropogenic disturbances have greatly altered the natural hydrologic regimes and have either eliminated or greatly impacted the pre-settlement habitats needed to support the specialstatus plant species identified in the CNDDB and CNPS queries. As such, the specific habitats, soil substrates or “micro-climates” necessary for special-status plant species to occur are absent within the boundaries of the project site. Based on site observations coupled with the habitat suitability analysis, no special-status plant species are expected to occur within the project site. It is also unlikely that any source populations exist in adjacent or nearby parcels.
Special-Status Animals
The historic anthropogenic disturbances in the project site and adjacent parcels (i.e., farming, disking, off-highway vehicles , etc.) have greatly altered, eliminated, or impacted the pre-settlement habitats needed to support most of the special-status animal species identified in the CNDDB and USFWS queries (refer to Appendix D). There are no known occurrences of any special-status animal species in the project site, and none were observed during the April 2020 field survey. Nonetheless, suitable habitat for several regionally-occurring special-status species is present in the project site and those species are discussed in further detail below.
Two special-status animal species, San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) have a moderate potential to occur in the project site due to the presence of suitable habitat and known records in the project vicinity. However, no sign which would indicate occupation or use by these species (e.g., scat, tracks, nesting materials, prey remains, or any other sign) was identified. Several small mammal burrows, including active California ground squirrel burrows and others (likely those of California vole [Microtus californicus], and/or Botta’s pocket gopher [Thomomys bottae]), were observed within the grassland habitats in the project site. None of the small mammal burrows observed in the project site exhibited features typical of occupied kit fox or burrowing owl burrows, although there is some potential for use by these species in the future. It should also be noted that the April 2020 survey took place at a time when regional documented burrowing owl habitat was occupied by the species (eBird 2020).
The project site contains foraging habitat for certain raptors such as the Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) but potential tree-nesting habitat is extremely limited on the project site (only one nonnative tree was present during the April 2020 survey). Suitable avian nesting habitat in the project site is limited to that which supports ground-nesting species such as Savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) and other birds that may nest in the annual herbaceous cover.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
J UNE 2021
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
\\acorp04\projects\EPI2001 Hanford Place\Bio\EPI2001_Hanford Biological Assessment_06.22.21.docx «06/22/21» 9 The evaluation of special-status animal species occurrence within the project site was based on a habitat suitability analysis. It did not include exhaustive surveys to determine their presence or absence, but did include direct observation of on-site and off-site conditions and a review of the available recorded occurrence data from the area to conclude whether or not a particular species could be expected to occur. Based on this analysis, it is unlikely that the remaining special-status wildlife species listed in Appendix D occur within the project site. Significant adverse impacts to special-status wildlife species are not anticipated with the implementation of the recommended impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures described in further detail below.
Critical Habitat
The project site is not located within or adjacent to designated or proposed critical habitat for any species.
Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources
With the exception of an open segment of Peoples Ditch (an irrigation canal excavated in the late 1800’s), the project site is strictly upland in nature with well-drained soils.
The Peoples Ditch is an artificially-constructed and maintained irrigation canal (owned and operated by the Peoples Ditch Company) that conveys diverted water to farmland south of the project site.
Within the Hanford region, Peoples Ditch has open trapezoidal sections as well as portions that run underground through culverts of various sizes and lengths. At the project site, the Peoples Ditch is an open trapezoidal channel measuring approximately 32 feet in width from the top-of-bank to topof-bank and approximately 10 feet deep. Most of the canal was dry during the April 2020 site survey, indicating an ephemeral flow regime at this location. The active channel width (e.g., area typically subject to seasonal flows) was measured in two locations (one near the culvert outfall at the southern terminus of Campus Drive/railroad alignment, and one near the southern culvert inlet that goes under State Route 198); the active channel width measures approximately 12 feet wide.
The canal appears to be regularly maintained for vegetation control and irrigation water conveyance.
Three plants typically associated with wetlands were observed in the canal: seep monkeyflower (Mimulus guttatus), western marsh cudweed (Gnaphalium palustre), and common knotweed (Persicaria lapathifolia). Additionally, Sierran tree frog (Pseudacris sierra) were heard calling and California toad (Anaxyrus boreas halophilus) tadpoles were observed within the canal. Litter and signs of other human disturbance were also present within the canal.
Due to the presence of a bed and bank and presence of water-dependent plants and wildlife, the Peoples Ditch may fall within the jurisdiction of CDFW under Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) under the California Water Code. However, the Peoples Ditch does not appear to have a downstream nexus with any jurisdictional water of the United States based on analysis of aerial imagery and topographic maps, and pursuant to the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (EPA and DOA 2020), effective June 22, 2020, the Peoples Ditch does not meet the definition of a jurisdictional water of the United States subject to regulation under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act. Furthermore, the Peoples Ditch does not meet the wetland criteria outlined in the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
J UNE 2021
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
\\acorp04\projects\EPI2001 Hanford Place\Bio\EPI2001_Hanford Biological Assessment_06.22.21.docx «06/22/21» 10 Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (SWRCB 2019), which excludes agricultural ditches with ephemeral flow that are not a relocated water of the state or excavated in a water of the state. Nevertheless, prior to any project project-related impacts to Peoples Ditch, it is recommended to consult with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), CDFW, and RWQCB to verify the feature’s jurisdictional status, and obtain applicable permit(s) and/or authorization(s), if any.
Wildlife Movement and Habitat Connectivity
The project site is isolated from natural areas and is surrounded by existing developments and highways. Therefore, it is unlikely that the site serves as an important corridor for animals moving locally, regionally, or in broader migrations. Migratory bird species may utilize the project site for foraging; however, the usage is likely transient and limited to species that forage over open grassland areas. The project site does not possess any characteristics that would indicate a locally significant stopover point for migratory species including raptors or waterfowl.
No known wildlife movement corridors occur within the project site or in the immediate vicinity.
Regional Habitat Conservation Plans and Local Policies
The City of Hanford and Kings County currently do not have a regional Natural Community Conservation Plan or Habitat Conservation Plan. The 2035 General Plan for the City of Hanford outlines local relevant policies related to biological resources. Below is the list of applicable polices:
• 5.5.1 Natural Habitat: Goal 04: Protection of natural habitat and other biological resources. o Policy 031 Provision of Open Space Areas: Preserve and enhance open space area. o Policy 032 Wetland and Riparian Corridor: Where appropriate and feasible, establish permanent mechanisms to protect wetlands and riparian corridors. o Policy 033 Vernal Pools: Identify and protect vernal pools that be located in Planning Area.
o Policy 035 Impacts from Development: Ensure that potential impacts to biological resources and sensitive habitat are carefully evaluated when considering development projects.
o Policy 037 Mature Trees: Promote the preservation of existing mature trees and encourage the planting of appropriate shade trees in new developments. o Policy 038 Native Tree Species and Drought Tolerant Vegetation: Encourage the planting of native tree species and drought-tolerant vegetation. • 5.5.2 Wildlife and Sensitive Species
o Policy 039 Endangered Wildlife and Habitat: Establish programs in connection with environmental review processes to protect endangered wildlife and their habitats. o Policy 040 Sensitive Wildlife: Work with state, federal, and local agencies on the preservation of sensitive wildlife species in the City.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
J UNE 2021
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
\\acorp04\projects\EPI2001 Hanford Place\Bio\EPI2001_Hanford Biological Assessment_06.22.21.docx «06/22/21» 11
IMPACT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
The following impact assessment and recommended mitigation measures are intended to support the CEQA review process. The project, as proposed by the applicant, coupled with LSA’s survey results and review of biological literature, provided the basis for this analysis. The impact discussion below addresses the range of impacts that could result from the proposed project, as well as recommended mitigation measures that would avoid, reduce, or compensate for such impacts.
SPECIAL-STATUS NATURAL COMMUNITIES
The project site does not contain any special-status natural communities and such habitats would not be impacted by the proposed project.
SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
No special-status plant species are expected to occur within the project site or to be adversely affected by the proposed project.
While no special-status animal species (or signs of such species) were observed on site during the April 2020 survey, several small mammal burrows were observed within the project site that are considered suitable habitat for burrowing owl, a California Species of Special Concern, and/or San Joaquin kit fox, a federally listed as endangered and state-listed as threatened species. None of the small mammal burrows observed in the project site exhibited features typical of occupied kit fox or burrowing owl burrows at the time of the survey, although there is some potential for use by these species in the future. Potentially significant direct and indirect impacts, including mortality, harassment, or other forms of incidental take, could occur if construction-related ground disturbance occurs in or around an occupied den or burrow.
No other special-status species were determined to have a moderate or high probability of occurrence on the project site (refer to Appendix D). The removal of the disturbed annual grassland habitat documented on the project site is not anticipated to substantially impact the population sizes of any special-status animal species given the context and setting of the project site and additional habitats for such species in the project vicinity.
While suitable habitat for shrub and tree nesting birds is very limited on the project site (only one tree occurs within the site boundaries), the project site does contain suitable nesting habitat for a variety of ground-nesting birds and for other birds that could nest in the annual herbaceous vegetation. Nesting birds are protected under the California Fish and Game Code. Construction activities that occur during the nesting bird season (typically February 15 through September 15) have potential to result in the direct or indirect take of nesting birds.
If unmitigated or avoided, these potential direct and indirect impacts on special-status wildlife species and nesting birds could be considered potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4, as summarized below, would effectively mitigate any impacts on special-status wildlife species to less-than-significant levels.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
J UNE 2021
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
\\acorp04\projects\EPI2001 Hanford Place\Bio\EPI2001_Hanford Biological Assessment_06.22.21.docx «06/22/21» 12 Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Conduct Preconstruction Clearance Surveys for San Joaquin Kit Fox and Burrowing Owl. A preconstruction clearance survey is required for San Joaquin kit fox and burrowing owl no more than 30 calendar days prior to initiation of project activities. All survey results must be delivered to the USFWS, the CDFW, and the City of Hanford. If the survey results find an active burrow of one or both of these species on the project site, the applicant must coordinate with the applicable resource agencies (CDFW for burrowing owl, CDFW and USFWS for kit fox) to obtain applicable agency approval(s)/permit(s) prior to any ground disturbance activities on the site.
Specific avoidance, den excavation, passive relocation, and compensatory mitigation activities shall be performed as required by the applicable agency. Appropriate provisions of the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) and USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox (USFWS 2011) shall be adhered to.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2. Worker Environmental Awareness Training. Prior to initial groundbreaking, Worker Environmental Awareness Training shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to educate all construction personnel on the relevant federal, state, and local laws related to potentially occurring special-status species at the site. The tailgate session shall include training on identification of species that may be found on the project site, the status of those species, and any legal protection afforded to those species. Personnel will be advised to report any special-status species encountered promptly. A fact sheet conveying this information will be prepared for display or for distribution to anyone who may enter the project site.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3. Construction Site Housekeeping and Operational Requirements.
Habitat subject to permanent and temporary construction disturbances and other types of ongoing project-related disturbance activities shall be minimized by adhering to the following USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox (USFWS 2011):
A. To minimize temporary disturbances, all project-related vehicle traffic shall be restricted to established roads, construction areas, and other designated areas. These areas shall also be included in preconstruction surveys and, to the extent possible, shall be established in locations disturbed by previous activities to prevent further impacts.
B. Project-related vehicles shall observe a daytime speed limit of 20- mph throughout the site in all project sites, except on county roads
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
J UNE 2021
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
\\acorp04\projects\EPI2001 Hanford Place\Bio\EPI2001_Hanford Biological Assessment_06.22.21.docx «06/22/21» 13 and state and federal highways; this is particularly important at night when kit foxes are most active. Night-time construction shall be minimized to the extent possible. However if it does occur, then the speed limit shall be reduced to 10-mph. Off-road traffic outside of designated project sites shall be prohibited.
C. To prevent inadvertent entrapment of kit foxes or other animals during the construction phase of a project, all excavated, steepwalled holes or trenches more than 2-feet deep shall be covered at the close of each working day by plywood or similar materials. If the trenches cannot be closed, one or more escape ramps constructed of earthen-fill or wooden planks shall be installed. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they shall be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. If at any time a trapped or injured kit fox is discovered, the USFWS and the CDFW shall be contacted.
D. Kit foxes are attracted to den-like structures such as pipes and may enter stored pipes and become trapped or injured. All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of 4-inches or greater that are stored at a construction site for one or more overnight periods shall be thoroughly inspected for kit foxes before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. If a kit fox is discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe shall not be moved until the USFWS and CDFW have been consulted. If necessary, and under the direct supervision of a qualified biologist, the pipe may be moved only once to remove it from the path of construction activity, until the fox has escaped. In the case of trapped animals, escape ramps or structures shall be installed immediately to allow the animal(s) to escape, or the USFWS and CDFW should be contacted for further guidance.
E. All food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps shall be disposed of in securely closed containers and removed at least once a week from a construction or project site.
F. Pets, such as dogs or cats, shall not be permitted on the project site to prevent harassment, mortality of kit foxes, or destruction of dens.
G. Use of rodenticides and herbicides in project sites shall be restricted. This is necessary to prevent primary or secondary poisoning of kit foxes and the depletion of prey populations on which they depend. All uses of such compounds shall observe label and other restrictions mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and other state and federal legislation. If rodent control must be
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
J UNE 2021
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
\\acorp04\projects\EPI2001 Hanford Place\Bio\EPI2001_Hanford Biological Assessment_06.22.21.docx «06/22/21» 14 conducted, zinc phosphide should be used because of a proven lower risk to kit fox.
Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance. If vegetation removal, construction, or grading activities are planned to occur within the active nesting bird season (February 15 through September 15), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey no more than 5 days prior to the start of such activities. The nesting bird survey shall include the project site and areas immediately adjacent to the site that could potentially be affected by project-related activities such as noise, vibration, increased human activity, and dust, etc. For any active nest(s) identified, the qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer zone around the active nest(s). The appropriate buffer shall be determined by the qualified biologist based on species, location, and the nature of the proposed activities. Project activities shall be avoided within the buffer zone until the nest is deemed no longer active by the qualified biologist.
CRITICAL HABITAT
The project would not result in any impacts to critical habitat, and no additional mitigation is required.
JURISDICTIONAL AQUATIC RESOURCES
The project proposes to convert an open trapezoidal segment of Peoples Ditch (an excavated irrigation canal) to a 66-inch-diameter below-ground pipe culvert which would terminate approximately 20 feet short of the existing pipe culvert that runs under State Route 198.
Approximately 0.50 acre of the irrigation canal would be undergrounded as part of the project.
As previously discussed, Peoples Ditch does not meet the definition of a jurisdictional water of the United States pursuant to the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (EPA and DOA 2020), effective June 22, 2020. Furthermore, Peoples Ditch does not meet the wetland criteria outlined in the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (SWRCB 2019), which excludes agricultural ditches with ephemeral flow that are not a relocated water of the state or excavated in a water of the state. Nevertheless, Peoples Ditch may fall within the jurisdiction of CDFW under Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code and the RWQCB under the California Water Code (e.g., the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act). Furthermore, given the recent substantial changes in operable definitions that have occurred and may continue to occur, and considering the regulatory revisions and potential court actions, it is not possible to definitively predict the regulations that will be in place at the time of a particular jurisdictional determination or permit action by the USACE. Under currently effective Clean Water Act regulations and guidance, the USACE reserves the right to regulate certain resources on a case-by-case basis.
Therefore, Regulatory Compliance Measure BIO-1 is recommended.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
J UNE 2021
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
\\acorp04\projects\EPI2001 Hanford Place\Bio\EPI2001_Hanford Biological Assessment_06.22.21.docx «06/22/21» 15 Regulatory Compliance Measure BIO-1: Agency Coordination for Peoples Ditch. Prior to any modifications to Peoples Ditch, it is recommended
to consult with the USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB to
verify the feature’s jurisdictional status and obtain
applicable permit(s) and/or authorization(s). A
notification of streambed alteration should be
submitted to the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife in accordance with Section 1602 of the
California Fish and Game Code. Unless categorically
excluded under effective definitions or existing
documentation confirms that no permit is needed,
the Central Valley RWQCB and Sacramento District
of the USACE should be consulted regarding
potential permitting needs under the California
Water Code and federal Clean Water Act,
respectively, associated with the proposed Peoples
Ditch modifications.
Implementing applicable permit measures would prevent or compensate for impacts on jurisdictional aquatic resources. Considering the status of Peoples Ditch as a constructed and maintained irrigation canal and the lack of natural drainages, riparian areas, and wetlands on the project site, the project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or by other means. The impact is considered less than significant.
WILDLIFE MOVEMENT AND HABITAT CONNECTIVITY
The wildlife species that occur in the project vicinity are adapted to the urban-wildland interface, and the project would not introduce new affects to the area. The noise, vibration, light, dust, or human disturbance within construction areas would only temporarily deter wildlife from using areas in the immediate vicinity of construction activities. These indirect effects could temporarily alter migration behaviors, territories, or foraging habitats in select areas. However, because these are temporary effects, it is likely that wildlife already living and moving in close proximity to urban development would alter their normal functions for the duration of the project construction and then re-establish these functions once all temporary construction effects have been removed. The proposed project would not place any permanent barriers within any known wildlife movement corridors or interfere with habitat connectivity. The impact is considered less than significant, and no additional mitigation is required.
REGIONAL HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANS AND LOCAL POLICIES
• 5.5.1 Natural Habitat: Goal 04: Protection of natural habitat and other biological resources. o Policy 031 Provision of Open Space Areas: Preserve and enhance open space area.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
J UNE 2021
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
\\acorp04\projects\EPI2001 Hanford Place\Bio\EPI2001_Hanford Biological Assessment_06.22.21.docx «06/22/21» 16 Consistency Analysis: The project site is located within the Highway Commercial land use designation and is isolated from open space areas; therefore the project is considered consistent with this policy.
o Policy 032 Wetland and Riparian Corridor: Where appropriate and feasible, establish permanent mechanisms to protect wetlands and riparian corridors.
Consistency Analysis: The project is not located within wetlands or riparian corridors; therefore the project is considered consistent with this policy. o Policy 033 Vernal Pools: Identify and protect vernal pools that be located in Planning Area.
Consistency Analysis: Vernal pools are not located within the project site; therefore the project is considered consistent with this policy.
o Policy 035 Impacts from Development: Ensure that potential impacts to biological resources and sensitive habitat are carefully evaluated when considering development projects.
Consistency Analysis: No sensitive or special-status natural communities occur on the project site. An appropriately-timed field survey and biological resources assessment were conducted on the project site to determine the likelihood and suitability of sensitive habitat and species; the project is not likely to result in significant impacts on sensitive resources with the implementation of recommended measures. Therefore, the project is considered consistent with this policy.
o Policy 037 Mature Trees: Promote the preservation of existing mature trees and encourage the planting of appropriate shade trees in new developments.
Consistency Analysis: The development plan includes the removal of one nonnative tree. The project will include the planting of trees as part of the landscaping plan, resulting in an overall increase in shade trees within the project area. Therefore, the project is considered consistent with this policy.
o Policy 038 Native Tree Species and Drought Tolerant Vegetation: Encourage the planting of native tree species and drought-tolerant vegetation.
Consistency Analysis: The landscaping plan will be provided in accordance with Section 17.52 Landscape Standards of the Hanford Municipal Code; all species of trees shall be selected from a list approved by the City’s Parks Division. Therefore, the project is considered consistent with this policy.
• 5.5.2 Wildlife and Sensitive Species
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
J UNE 2021
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
\\acorp04\projects\EPI2001 Hanford Place\Bio\EPI2001_Hanford Biological Assessment_06.22.21.docx «06/22/21» 17 o Policy 039 Endangered Wildlife and Habitat: Establish programs in connection with environmental review processes to protect endangered wildlife and their habitats.
Consistency Analysis: An appropriately-timed field survey and literature reviews were conducted for the project in support of the CEQA review process. Based on the analysis and with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures contained herein, it is unlikely that any endangered species would be adversely affected by the project. Therefore, the project is considered consistent with this policy.
o Policy 040 Sensitive Wildlife: Work with state, federal, and local agencies on the preservation of sensitive wildlife species in the City.
Consistency Analysis: Implementation of recommended Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4, as described above, would ensure consistency with applicable resource agency policies with regard to sensitive wildlife species determined to have potential of occurring on the project site. Therefore, the project is considered consistent with this policy.
With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures listed above, the proposed project would not conflict with any regional habitat conservation plan or local policies related to the protection and conservation of biological resources.
CONCLUSION
Based on field observations coupled with the habitat suitability analysis conducted for this assessment, the proposed project has low-to-moderate potential to impact several regionallyoccurring special-status wildlife species, but is not anticipated to impact any special-status plant species, natural communities, or other habitats of concern. The implementation of the recommended mitigation measures detailed herein would ensure consistency with local policies related to biological resources, and would reduce any potentially significant impacts on specialstatus wildlife species to a less than significant level.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
J UNE 2021
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
\\acorp04\projects\EPI2001 Hanford Place\Bio\EPI2001_Hanford Biological Assessment_06.22.21.docx «06/22/21» 18
REFERENCES
Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson manual: vascular plants of California, second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley.
California Burrowing Owl Consortium. 1993. Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines. April 1993.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2020. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition v8). Available at: http://cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/inventory/. March 2020.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.
State of California Natural Resources Agency. March 2012. ______. 2018. California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). Special Animals List. November 2018.
Periodic publication. 67 pp.
______. 2020. State of California, Department of Fish and Wildlife Biogeographic Data Branch.
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Rarefind Version 5. March 2020. Rarefind query of the USGS 7.5-minute quads nine-quad review area – Riverdale, Laton, Burris Park, Lemoore, Hanford, Remnoy, Stratford, Guernsey, and Waukena, and GIS query of occurrences within a 5-mile buffer (project vicinity).
City of Hanford, Kings County. 2017. 2035 General Plan City of Hanford, Biological Resources. Last updated: April 2017.
eBird. 2020. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance. Species occurrence records for Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia). eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Available: http://www.ebird.org. Accessed: May 7, 2020.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of the Army (DOA). 2020. The Navigable Waters Protection Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States.” 85 Federal Register 22250. Available at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/21/2020- 02500/the-navigable-waters-protection-rule-definition-of-waters-of-the-united-states Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2020. Web Soil Survey. Available at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
Sawyer, J., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. Evans. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation. 2nd edition.
California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, California: California Native Plant Society. 1,300 pp.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
J UNE 2021
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
\\acorp04\projects\EPI2001 Hanford Place\Bio\EPI2001_Hanford Biological Assessment_06.22.21.docx «06/22/21» 19 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2019. State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State [For Inclusion in the Water Quality Control Plans for Inland Surface Waters and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries and Ocean Waters of California]. Adopted April 2, 2019. Effective May 28, 2020. Available at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/cwa401/docs/procedures_confor med.pdf
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. January 2011.
______. 2020a. Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS). Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) Trust Resources Report. March 2020. Available at: http://ecos.fws. gov/ecp/.
______. 2020b. USFWS Critical Habitat Polygons. Available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/. March 2020.
______. 2020c. USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), Online Mapper Tool. Available at:
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
J UNE 2021
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
\\acorp04\projects\EPI2001 Hanford Place\Bio\EPI2001_Hanford Biological Assessment_06.22.21.docx «06/22/21» A-1
APPENDIX A
FIGURES
Project
Location
SOURCE: Esri World Street Map (2020); National Geographic (2020).
I:\EPI2001\GIS\Maps\Figure 1_Regional Location.mxd (4/13/2020) FIGURE 1
Hanford Place Project
Hanford, Kings County, California
Regional Location
LEGEND
Project Site
0 0.5 1
MILES
Project
Location
FRESNO
TULARE
KINGS
Project Vicinity
Campus Drive
State Highway 198
Glendale AveMall Drive
W 6th Street
W 7th Street
5th Street
ÄÆ198
SOURCE: Google Aerial Imagery (2020).
\\PTR11\images\EPI2001\GIS\Maps\Figure 2_Project Location_rev1.mxd (5/11/2020) FIGURE 2
Hanford Place Project
Hanford, Kings County, California
Project Location
LEGEND
Project Site
0 250 500
FEET
NOT TO SCALE
SOURCE: LANGDON WILSON INTERNATIONAL, 2020.FRE10\P:\EPI2001 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Figure_3.ai (4/22/2020) FIGURE 3
Hanford Place Project
Hanford, Kings County, California
Site Plan
SOURCE: Google Aerial Imagery (2020).
\\PTR11\images\EPI2001\GIS\Maps\Figure 4_Vegetation Map_rev1.mxd (6/10/2021) FIGURE 4
Hanford Place Project
Hanford, Kings County, California
Vegetation Map
LEGEND
Project Site Vegetation and Land Use Type
Developed
Barren/Disturbed
Peoples Ditch- Irrigation Canal
Wild Oats and Annual Brome Grassland
0 250 500
FEET
SOURCE: Google Aerial Imagery (2020).
\\PTR11\images\EPI2001\GIS\Maps\Figure 5_Soils Map.mxd (4/30/2020) FIGURE 5
Hanford Place Project
Hanford, Kings County, California
Soils Map
LEGEND
Project Site
Soil Type
149-Nord complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes MLRA 17
167- Urban land 0 250 500
FEET
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
J UNE 2021
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
\\acorp04\projects\EPI2001 Hanford Place\Bio\EPI2001_Hanford Biological Assessment_06.22.21.docx «06/22/21» B-1
APPENDIX B
PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
J UNE 2021
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
\\acorp04\projects\EPI2001 Hanford Place\Bio\EPI2001_Hanford Biological Assessment_06.22.21.docx «06/22/21» B-2 The table below contains a list of plant species identified on the project site by LSA Biologist Kelly McDonald on April 27, 2020.
Plant Species Observed
EUDICOTS
Amaranthaceae Amaranth family
* Amaranthus albus pigweed amaranth
Asteraceae Sunflower Family
* Erigeron bonariensis flax-leaved horseweed
Erigeron canadensis Canadian horseweed
Gnaphalium palustre Western marsh cudweed
Helianthus annuus common sunflower
* Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce
Matricaria discoidea pineapple weed
* Silybum marianum milk thistle
* Soncus asper spiny sow-thistle
Boraginaceae Borage family
Amsinckia menziesii common fiddleneck
Brassicaceae Mustard Family
* Capsella bursa-pastoris Shepherd’s purse
* Hirschfeldia incana shortpod mustard
* Lepidium didymum lesser swine cress
* Raphanus raphanistrum wild radish
* Sisymbrium altissimum tumble mustard
* Sisymbrium irio London rocket
Chenopodiaceae Goosefoot Family
* Salsola tragus Russian thistle
Geraniaceae Geranium Family
* Erodium malacoides Mediterranean storks’ bill
Fabaceae Legume Family
* Melilotus albus whitesweet clover
* Melilotus indicus yellow sweetclover
Trifolium willdenovii Tomcat clover
Malvaceae Mallow Family
* Malva parviflora cheeseweed mallow
Polygonaceae Buckwheat Family
Persicaria lapathifolia common knotweed
* Rumex crispus curly dock
Phrymaceae Lopseed Family
Erythranthe guttata common monkeyflower
Solanacea Nightshade Family
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
J UNE 2021
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
\\acorp04\projects\EPI2001 Hanford Place\Bio\EPI2001_Hanford Biological Assessment_06.22.21.docx «06/22/21» B-3 Plant Species Observed
* Solanum elaeagnifolium white-horse nettle
Simaroubaceae Quassi Family
* Ailanthus altissima tree of heaven
MONOCOTS
Poaceae Grass Family
* Avena barbata wild oat
* Bromus diandrus ripgut grass
* Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens red brome
* Bromus madritensis ssp. madritensis foxtail chess
* Bromus tectorum cheat grass
* Hordeum murinum foxtail barley
* Polypogon monspeliensis rabbitsfoot grass
* Sorghum halepense Johnsongrass
* = nonnative species
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
J UNE 2021
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
\\acorp04\projects\EPI2001 Hanford Place\Bio\EPI2001_Hanford Biological Assessment_06.22.21.docx «06/22/21» C-1
APPENDIX C
REPRESENTATIVE SITE PHOTOS
acorp04:\EPI2001HanfordPlace\Bio\Appendix\App B\Site_Photos_4pg.cdr (5/13/2020)
APPENDIX B
Hanford Place Project
Site Photographs
Site overview showing disturbed areas and wild oats and annual brome grassland vegetation. Photo taken facing east from the central portion of the project site, east of Peoples Ditch. April 27, 2020.
The southwest portion of the project site supports wild oats and annual brome grassland vegetation. Photo taken facing west near Highway 198, near the southwestern corner of the projectsite.April 27, 2020.
(Sheet 1 of 4)
acorp04:\EPI2001HanfordPlace\Bio\Appendix\App B\Site_Photos_4pg.cdr (5/13/2020)
APPENDIX B
Hanford Place Project
Site Photographs
(Sheet 2 of 4)
View of Peoples Ditch, facing south near the Campus
Drive culvert outfall. April 27, 2020.
View of existing Peoples Ditch culvert inlet that goes
underneathHighway 198, facing south. Visible signs
of debris and human disturbancewere observed
within the canal. April 27, 2020.
View of Peoples Ditch and barren areas,facing
northwest. A single tree (Ailanthus altissima; nonnative species) is present on the project site. April27,2020.
View of Peoples Ditch and barren areas, facing west.
April27, 2020.
acorp04:\EPI2001HanfordPlace\Bio\Appendix\App B\Site_Photos_4pg.cdr (5/13/2020)
APPENDIX B
Hanford Place Project
Site Photographs
Site overview showing disturbed/barren areas, debris, and wild oats and annual brome grassland vegetation. Photo taken facing east from the northeastern corner of the project site.April 27,2020.
Site overview showing disturbance from off-highway vehicle use, foot paths, and wild oats and annual brome grassland vegetation. Photo taken facing east near the northern portion of the project site. April 27, 2020. (Sheet 3 of 4)
acorp04:\EPI2001HanfordPlace\Bio\Appendix\App B\Site_Photos_4pg.cdr (5/13/2020)
APPENDIX B
Hanford Place Project
Site Photographs
One of several burrows located in the barren areas surrounding Peoples Ditch.
No burrowing owl or kit fox sign was detected at any of the observed burrows.
April 27,2020.
View of the northeastern portion of the project site showing the worn foot path and wild oats and annual brome grassland vegetation, near the railroad tracks.
April 27, 2020.
(Sheet 4 of 4)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
J UNE 2021
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
\\acorp04\projects\EPI2001 Hanford Place\Bio\EPI2001_Hanford Biological Assessment_06.22.21.docx «06/22/21» D-1
APPENDIX D
SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES IDENTIFIED AS POTENTIALLY OCCURING IN THE
PROJECT VICINITY
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
J UNE 2021
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
\\acorp04\projects\EPI2001 Hanford Place\Bio\EPI2001_Hanford Biological Assessment_06.22.21.docx «06/22/21» D-1 Table D-1: Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring in the Project Vicinity Common
Name Scientific Name Status General Habitat Description Flowering Period Likelihood of Occurrence and Rationale Earliart orache Atriplex cordulata
var. erecticaulis
US: –
CA: –
CNPS: 1B:2
Annual herb occurring in valley and
foothill grassland between 40 and 100 m
in elevation. Kings, Kern and Tulare
counties.
AugustSeptember Not Expected. There are no known historical records of occurrence in the project vicinity 1 and
suitable habitat is limited in the project area; the
maintained nature of the project area reduces the
likelihood of occurrence.
Brittlescale Atriplex depressa US: –
CA: –
CNPS: 1B:2
Annual herb occurring in chenopod scrub,
meadows, seeps, valley/foothill
grasslands, playas and vernal pools
between 1 and 320 m elevation. Found in
Central Valley counties.
AprilOctoberNot Expected. There are no known records of occurrence in the project vicinity and suitable
habitat is limited in the project area; the
maintained nature of the project area reduces the
likelihood of occurrence.
Lesser saltscale Atriplex minuscula US: –
CA: –
CNPS: 1B:1
Annual herb occurring in chenopod scrub,
valley/foothill grassland, and playas in
sandy soils between 15 and 200 m in
elevation. Found in Central Valley
counties.
MayOctober Low probability of occurrence. There are no known records of occurrence in the project vicinity
and suitable habitat is limited in the project area;
the maintained nature of the project area reduces
the likelihood of occurrence.
Subtle orache Atriplex subtilis US: –
CA: –
CNPS: 1B:2
Annual herb occurring in valley and
foothill grassland on alkaline soils between
40 and 100 m in elevation. Found in
Central Valley counties.
JuneOctoberLow probability of occurrence. There are no known records of occurrence in the project vicinity
and suitable habitat is limited in the project area;
the maintained nature of the project area reduces
the likelihood of occurrence.
Recurved
larkspur
Delphinium
recurvatum
US: –
CA: –
CNPS: 1B.2
Perennial herb associated with chenopod
scrub, cistomante woodlands, and
valley/foothill grasslands on alkaline soils
between 3 and 790 m in elevation. Found
in Central Valley counties.
March-June Not expected. There are no known records of
occurrence in the project vicinity and suitable
habitat is limited in the project area; the
maintained nature of the project area reduces the
likelihood of occurrence. The April 2020 survey
was conducted during the typical blooming period
of this species.
Panoche
pepper-grass
Lepidium jaredii
ssp. album
US: –
CA: –
CNPS: 1B.2
Annual herb occurring in valley and
foothill grasslands on steep slopes with
clay and alkaline soils between 185 and
745 m elevation. Fresno, San Benito and
San Luis Obispo counties.
FebruaryJuneNot Expected. There are no known records of occurrence in the project vicinity and suitable
habitat conditions are absent in the project area.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
J UNE 2021
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
\\acorp04\projects\EPI2001 Hanford Place\Bio\EPI2001_Hanford Biological Assessment_06.22.21.docx «06/22/21» D-2 Table D-1: Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring in the Project Vicinity Common
Name Scientific Name Status General Habitat Description Flowering Period Likelihood of Occurrence and Rationale Mud nama Nama stenocarpa US: –
CA: –
CNPS: 1B.1
Annual/perennial herb occurring lake
margins, river banks, marshes and swamps
between 5 and 500 m in elevation. Found
in interior southern California counties.
JanuaryJuly Not Expected. There are historical records of occurrence in the project vicinity (CNDDB 1942);
however, suitable habitat is limited in the project
area; the maintained nature of the project area
reduces the likelihood of occurrence.
California alkali
grass
Puccinellia simplex US: –
CA: –
CNPS: 1B.2
Annual herb occurring in chenopod scrub,
vernal pools, valley/foothill grasslands,
and meadows/seeps. On alkaline, vernally
mesic, sinks, flats and lake margins
between 2 and 930 m in elevation. Central
Valley counties.
March-May Not Expected. There are no known records of
occurrence in the project vicinity and suitable
habitat is limited in the project area; the
maintained nature of the project area reduces the
likelihood of occurrence.
1 Project vicinity = Project area plus a 5 mile buffer
Status: Federal Endangered (FE), Federal Threatened (FT), Federal Candidate (FC), Federal Proposed (FP, FPE, FPT), Federal Delisted (FD), California Endangered (CE), California Threatened (CT), California Species of Special Concern (SSC), California Fully Protected Species (CFP), California Special Plant (CSP), California Special Animal (CSA) California Native Plant Society Designations:
1B = Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere 2B = Rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but not elsewhere
0.1 = seriously endangered
0.2 = fairly endangered
CA = California
CNPS = California Native Plant Society
ft = foot/feet
m = meter/meters
mi = mile/miles
US = United States
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
J UNE 2021
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
\\acorp04\projects\EPI2001 Hanford Place\Bio\EPI2001_Hanford Biological Assessment_06.22.21.docx «06/22/21» D-3 Table D-2: Special-Status Animal Species Potentially Occurring or Known to Occur in the Project Vicinity Common Name Scientific Name Status Listing Habitat and Comments Likelihood of Occurrence and Rationale
INVERTEBRATES
Valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
Desmocerus
californicus
dimorphus
US: FT
CA: –
Requires elderberry trees, usually in riparian ecosystems, as host sources for breeding and forage.
Not Expected. There are no known records of
occurrence in the project vicinity and suitable
habitat is absent in the project area.
San Joaquin tiger
beetle
Cicindela
tranquebarica ssp.
US: –
CA: –
Known only to occur in Tulare and Kings counties. Not Expected. There are no known records of occurrence in the project vicinity and suitable
habitat is absent in the project area.
vernal pool fairy
shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi US: FT
CA: –
Occurs only in vernal pools or vernal pool-like habitats and does not occur in riverine, marine, or other permanent bodies of water.
Not expected. There are no known records of
occurrence in the project vicinity and suitable
habitat is absent in the project area.
vernal pool tadpole
shrimp
Lepidurus packardi US: FE
CA: –
Occurs only in ephemeral freshwater habitats, including alkaline pools, clay flats, vernal lakes, vernal pools, vernal swales, and other seasonal wetlands.
Not expected. There are no known records of
occurrence in the project vicinity and suitable
habitat is absent in the project area.
AMPHIBIANS
California tiger
salamander
Ambystoma
californiense
US: FT
CA: CT
Located in riparian woodlands and valley/foothills grasslands.
Requires underground refuges, especially ground squirrel burrows, and vernal pools or other seasonal water sources for breeding.
Not expected. There are no known records of
occurrence in the project vicinity and minimal
suitable habitat is present.
Western spadefoot Spea hammondii US: FCT
CA: SSC
Occurs primarily in grassland and other relatively open habitats.
Found in elevations ranging from sea level to 4,500 ft. Requires temporary pools for breeding.
Low probability of occurrence. There are no
known records of occurrence in the project
vicinity and minimal suitable habitat is present
within the canal and the surrounding grassland.
However, debris and human disturbance were
observed within the canal limiting the
likelihood of occurrence.
REPTILES
California glossy
snake
Arizona elegans
occidentalis
US:-
CA: SSC
Occurs in low-elevation arid scrub, open woodland, grasslands, and chaparral slope habitats throughout the southwest and into Mexico. Dependent on diurnal lizards for major food source, small reptiles, birds, and mammals.
Low probability of occurrence. There are no
known records of occurrence in the project
vicinity and minimal suitable habitat is present.
Blunt-nosed leopard
lizard
Gambella sila US: FE
CA: CE
Prefers sparsely vegetated arid grasslands and brush/scrub where there are abundant rodent burrows. Rare or absent in dense vegetation or tall grass.
Low probability of occurrence. There are no
known records of occurrence in the project
vicinity and suitable habitat is largely absent in
the project area due to high, dense vegetation.
Human disturbance also limits the likelihood of
occurrence.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
J UNE 2021
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
\\acorp04\projects\EPI2001 Hanford Place\Bio\EPI2001_Hanford Biological Assessment_06.22.21.docx «06/22/21» D-4 Table D-2: Special-Status Animal Species Potentially Occurring or Known to Occur in the Project Vicinity Common Name Scientific Name Status Listing Habitat and Comments Likelihood of Occurrence and Rationale Western pond turtle Emys marmorata US: –
CA: SSC
Occurs in ponds, marshes, rivers, streams and irrigation ditches, usually with aquatic vegetation, below 6000 ft elevation. Upland habitat is needed for basking and breeding.
Very low probability of occurrence. There are
no known records of occurrence in the project
vicinity and only marginally suitable habitat is
present within the canal and the surrounding
grassland. However, debris and human
disturbance were observed within the canal,
and the ephemeral flow regime limit the
likelihood of occurrence.
BIRDS
Tricolored blackbird Agelalus tricolor US: –
CA: CT
Occurs in open country or marshes in large colonies mainly in CA Central Valley. Breeds in freshwater marshes with tall emergent vegetation, feeds on insects.
Not Expected. There are no known records of
occurrence in the project vicinity and suitable
habitat is absent in the project area.
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia US: –
CA: SSC
Burrows in open, dry, annual or perennial grasslands, deserts, and scrublands characterized by low-growing vegetation.
Subterranean nester, dependent upon burrowing mammals,
most notably the California ground squirrel.
Moderate probability of occurrence. There are
no known occurrences on the project site and
marginally suitable habitat is present in the
project area. Several small mammal burrows
were unoccupied during the April 2020 survey,
and no owl sign was observed. Known burrow
sites in the Hanford region were occupied at
the time of the April 2020 survey (eBird 2020).
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni US: –
CA: CT
Breeds in grasslands with scattered trees, juniper-sage flats, riparian areas, savannas, and agricultural/ranch lands. Requires adjacent suitable foraging areas such as grasslands, alfalfa, or grain fields supporting rodent populations.
Moderate probability of foraging; Low
probability of nesting. There are historical
records of occurrence in the project vicinity
(CNDDB 2012, 2016) where nesting occurred.
The project area does contain one tree that
could provide suitable nesting habitat. The
surrounding grassland could also provide
suitable foraging habitat.
Western snowy
plover
Charadrius
alexandrinus nivosus
US: FT
CA: SSC
Inhabits sandy beaches, salt pond levees & shores of large alkali lakes. Nests on sandy, gravelly or friable soils.
Low probability of occurrence. There are no
known records of occurrence in the project
vicinity and suitable nesting habitat is
restricted to the top of the canal. However,
debris and human disturbance were observed
within project area limiting the likelihood of
occurrence.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
J UNE 2021
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
\\acorp04\projects\EPI2001 Hanford Place\Bio\EPI2001_Hanford Biological Assessment_06.22.21.docx «06/22/21» D-5 Table D-2: Special-Status Animal Species Potentially Occurring or Known to Occur in the Project Vicinity Common Name Scientific Name Status Listing Habitat and Comments Likelihood of Occurrence and Rationale Yellow-headed
blackbird
Xanthocephalus
xanthocephalus
US: –
CA:SSC
Known to inhabit marshes and riparian areas in the Central Valley.
Not Expected. There are no known records of
occurrence in the project vicinity and suitable
habitat is absent in the project area.
MAMMALS
Tipton kangaroo rat Dipodomys
nitratoides
nitratoides
US: FE
CA: CE
Inhabits open lands with sparse wood shrubs and low cover of annual grasses and forbs, alkali and saltbush scrublands.
Low probability of occurrence. There are no
known records of occurrence in the project
vicinity and suitable habitat is largely absent in
the project area due to high, dense vegetation.
Several small mammal burrows were
unoccupied during the April 2020 survey,
however debris and human disturbance were
observed within the project area limiting the
likelihood of occurrence
Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus US: –
CA: CSA
Prefers open habitats or habitat mosaics with access to trees for cover and open areas or habitat edges for feeding. Roosts in dense foliage of medium to large trees. Feeds primarily on moths. Requires water.
Roosting Not Expected. There is a historical
record of occurrence in the project vicinity
(CNDDB 1991). Suitable roosting habitat is
absent in the project area. Some suitable
foraging habitat present in the project area.
San Joaquin kit fox Vulpes macrotis
mutica
US: FE
CA: CT
Prefers open, level areas with loose-textured soils supporting scattered, shrubby vegetation with little human disturbance.
Some agricultural areas may support these foxes.
Moderate probability of occurrence. There are
historical records of occurrence in the project
vicinity (CNDDB 1975, 2000, 2006). Known to
historically forage and den in the project
vicinity, although there are no records in the
project site and the site is isolated by existing
urban development. Marginal denning habitat
is present in the project site. Several small
mammal burrows appeared to be unoccupied
during the April 2020 survey, and no fox sign
was observed. 1
Project vicinity = Project area plus a 5 mile buffer
Status: Federal Endangered (FE), Federal Threatened (FT), Federal Candidate (FC), Federal Proposed (FP, FPE, FPT), Federal Delisted (FD), California Endangered (CE), California Threatened (CT), California Species of Special Concern (SSC), California Fully Protected Species (CFP), California Special Animal (CSA) ft = foot/feet
m = meter/meters
mi = mile/miles
US = United States
CA = California
INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) C-1
APPENDIX C
CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
C P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -2 This page intentionally left blank
USGS Hanford 7.5-minute quadrangle; T18S, R21E, Section 35
42.73 acres surveyed, 0.11 acre not surveyed
Keywords: Peoples Ditch (P-16-000246/CA-KIN-97H); AE-4167-01; AE-4167-ISO-01 Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place
Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project in the
City of Hanford, Kings County, California
Diana T. Dyste, Jessica Jones, Dennis McDougall,
Ward Stanley, and Carlos van Onna
Prepared By
Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
1391 W. Shaw Ave., Suite C
Fresno, CA 93711
Prepared For
The Hanford Group
c/o Epic Management Group, Inc.
44045 Margarita Road, Suite 100
Temecula, CA 92592
August 2020
draft
Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project iii
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ), at the request of the Hanford Group and under subcontract to Epic Management Group, Inc., completed a cultural resource inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project (Project) in Kings County, California. The Project proposes the construction of 15 buildings and structures that will be utilized for medical outpatient clinic services, hospitality, specialized education, retail, medical offices, skilled nursing and assisted living facilities, and multifamily housing. Project activities that could cause ground disturbance include grading; trenching for installation of water, sewer, and electrical infrastructure; construction of a roundabout; and excavation of a storm water retention basin in addition to construction of buildings, structures, and facilities.
The Project must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which mandates that government agencies consider the impacts of their actions on the environment, including cultural resources. This report documents whether historical resources, as defined by the CEQA Guidelines, would be adversely impacted by the proposed Project. Æ’s cultural resource inventory included a records search at the California Historical Resources Information System Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center at California State University, Bakersfield; a review of historic maps, aerial photographs, and atlases; a search of the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File; nongovernmental outreach to local Native American representatives identified by the NAHC; a buried site sensitivity assessment; and an intensive pedestrian survey of the Project area to identify cultural resources observable on the ground surface.
The Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center records search for the Project and surrounding 0.5-mile area identified nine previous investigations intersecting the Project area and five additional studies in the surrounding 0.5-mile area. One historic-era resource was identified in the Project area (a segment of Peoples Ditch) and three historic-era resources were identified in the surrounding 0.5-mile area. A search of the NAHC Sacred Lands File did not identify sacred sites in the Project area. No responses have been received in response to Æ’s outreach to six Native American representatives identified by the NAHC.
Æ archaeologists conducted an intensive pedestrian survey of the Project area to identify prehistoric and historic-era cultural resources visible at the ground surface. No prehistoric sites were identified during the pedestrian survey; however, Æ recorded one isolated historic artifact (AE-4167-ISO-01) and one historic-era deposit (AE-4167-01) observed on the ground surface in the southeastern portion of the Project area.
In addition, the buried site sensitivity assessment concluded that there is high potential for the soils in previously undisturbed portions of the Project area to contain anthropogenic paleosols that may harbor intact prehistoric cultural deposits. Portions of the Project area previously disturbed by the construction of the historic-era Peoples Ditch canal and its modern realignment, or within the historic-era plow zone (up to 24 inches below the ground surface) have a much lower sensitivity for containing paleosols with intact prehistoric deposits.
iv Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project To fully comply with CEQA and determine if the Project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significant qualities of a historical resource, Æ recommends additional mapping and subsurface testing of AE-4167-01 to evaluate its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.
Ӕ additionally recommends focused subsurface testing in areas of the site not previously disturbed by historic-era activities to confirm the presence/absence of high-sensitivity paleosols that may include intact prehistoric cultural deposits. Completion of mapping, site testing, and soil testing will allow for an adequate assessment of whether the proposed Project may cause adverse impacts to historical resources (i.e., cultural resources eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources). The methods and findings of the additional study would be presented as an addendum to this report and would include cultural resource management recommendations.
Field notes and photographs are on file at Æ’s office in Fresno, California. A copy of the final version of this report and associated cultural resource records will be transmitted to the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center for inclusion in the California Historical Resources Information System.
Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project v
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND ...................................................................................1
1.2 PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS ..................................................................5
1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION ...................................................................................5 2 PROJECT SETTING ........................................................................................................7
2.1 NATURAL SETTING .............................................................................................7
2.2 CULTURAL SETTING ...........................................................................................8
2.2.1 Prehistory .....................................................................................................8
2.2.2 Ethnohistory .................................................................................................9
2.2.3 Historical Setting .......................................................................................10
2.2.3.1 Transportation and Development of Hanford .............................11
2.2.3.2 Agriculture in the Central Valley ................................................12
2.2.3.3 Water Conveyance ......................................................................12
2.2.3.4 Historical Use and Development of the Project Area .................13 3 METHODS .......................................................................................................................19
3.1 RECORDS SEARCH ............................................................................................19
3.2 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH .....................................................................................19
3.3 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH ....................................................................19
3.4 BURIED SITE SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT ...................................................19
3.5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY ..........................................................................20
3.5.1 Documentation of Cultural Resources .......................................................20 4 FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................21
4.1 RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS ..........................................................................21
4.2 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH .....................................................................................21
4.3 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH ....................................................................21
4.4 BURIED SITE SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT ...................................................22
4.5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY FINDINGS ......................................................23
4.5.1 Visibility ....................................................................................................23
4.5.2 Archaeological Resources ..........................................................................23
4.5.3 Built Environment Resources ....................................................................26 5 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................29 6 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................31
vi Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project
APPENDICES
A Personnel Qualifications
B Records Search Results
C Native American Outreach
D Cultural Resource Records
FIGURES
1-1 Project vicinity in Kings County, California .......................................................................2 1-2 Project location on the USGS Hanford, CA 7.5-minute quadrangle ...................................3 1-3 Aerial view of the Project area .............................................................................................4 2-1 City of Hanford circa 1892 showing streets and blocks aligned to the SPR tracks ..........11 2-2 Dry Creek present within the Project area prior to irrigation, as depicted on an 1855 General Land Office Plat ....................................................................................14 2-3 Project area on Thompson’s 1892 Tulare County property atlas showing the structure on H. F. Schumaker’s property .....................................................................14 2-4 USGS Hanford, California, 1926 topographic map showing location of the structure identified on the 1892 Tulare County atlas and the historical alignment of Peoples Ditch within the Project area .....................................................15 2-5 1937 aerial photo depicting the alignment of the Peoples Ditch, the history-era residence, and the Southern Pacific/San Joaquin Valley Railroad within the Project area .............................................................................................................16 2-6 USGS Hanford, CA 1954 photorevised topographic map showing historical building in eastern portion of the Project area and Peoples Ditch in the western portion.............................................................................................................16 2-7 1976 aerial photograph demonstrating removal of historical building in the eastern portion of the Project area and the alignment of the Peoples Ditch at that time in the western portion ................................................................................17 4-1 Survey conditions from the center of the Project area showing 100 percent ground surface visibility, facing west ..........................................................................24 4-2 Survey conditions within and along the modern alignment of Peoples Ditch, facing north ..................................................................................................................24 4-3 Survey coverage and cultural resources in the Project area ...............................................25 4-4 Various glass and ceramic artifact fragments and a toy marble from historic site AE-4167-01 ...........................................................................................................26 4-5 Detail view of historical glass insulator fragment (isolated artifact AE-4167- ISO-01) ........................................................................................................................26 4-6 Remnant scar of historical Peoples Ditch within survey area, facing east ........................27
Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project 1 1 INTRODUCTION
Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ), under subcontract to Epic Management Group, Inc., performed a cultural resource inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Facility Project (Project) in the city of Hanford, Kings County, California (Figure 1-1). Specifically, the Project is in Section 35, Township 18 South, Range 21 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (Figure 1-2). The Project includes 42.84 acres between the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway tracks and State Route 198 (Figure 1-3).
The Project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; California Public Resources Code [PRC] Sections 21000–21189) and the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations [CCR], Sections 15000–15387), which mandate that public agencies consider the impacts of discretionary projects on the environment, including cultural resources. If a project has the potential to cause substantial adverse change in the characteristics of an important cultural resource or “historical resource” through demolition, destruction, relocation, alteration, or other means, then the project is judged to have a significant effect on the environment (14 CCR 15064.5[b]). Sections 15064.5(a)(1–3) of the CEQA Guidelines state that a historical resource is: (1) listed or determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources; (2) included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to PRC Section 5020.1[k]) or identified as significant in a historical resource survey per the CRHR eligibility criteria (PRC 5024.1[c]); or (3) considered eligible by a lead agency under PRC 5020.1(j) or 5024.1. The definition subsumes a variety of resources, including prehistoric and historical archaeological sites, structures, buildings, and objects (14 CCR 15064.5[a][3] and 15064.5[c]). The City of Hanford is the lead agency for purposes of the CEQA.
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Project proposes to construct 15 buildings, structures, and facilities that will be utilized for medical outpatient clinic services, hospitality, specialized education, retail, medical offices, skilled nursing and assisted living, and multifamily housing. Project activities with potential to cause ground disturbance would include grading; installation of water, sewer, and electrical infrastructure; construction of a roundabout; and excavation of a storm water retention basin in addition to construction of the 15 buildings and structures. The roundabout would be incorporated into the public right-of-way. Maximum depth of ground disturbance is presently undefined. Similarly, maximum height of proposed structures is not determined.
To assist the Hanford Group in fulfilling CEQA requirements for the proposed Project, Æ conducted a cultural resource inventory that included: (1) a records search at the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) to identify prior cultural resource studies and previously recorded cultural resources in the Project area and surrounding 0.5-mile area; (2) desktop archival research to better understand land use and property ownership within the Project area; (3) a search of the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File and outreach with local
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
§¨¦5
Mendota
Madera
Clovis
Fresno
San Joaquin
Sanger
Selma
Coalinga
Hanford
Lemoore
Avenal
Delano
Wasco
Shafter
Visalia
Tulare
Porterville
MADERA
COUNTY
FRESNO
COUNTY
TULARE
COUNTY
KINGS
COUNTY
SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY
¬«43
¬«198
O 10 5 0 10 20 30 40 50
Miles
10 5 0 10 20 30 40 50
Kilometers
PROJECT SCALE 1:1,000,000 AREA
Figure 1-1 Project vicinity in Hanford, California.
2 Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project
PROJECT AREA
Document Path: Z:\Shared\GIS\00 - Fresno Projects\Hanford Group - Mixed-Use Facility (4167)\Projects\06 Report Figures\Arch Survey Report_date\Figure 1-1 Vicinity Map.mxd ¬«41
Figure 1-2 Project location on the USGS Hanford, CA 7.5-minute quadrangle.
Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project 3 Township 18S/Range 21E, Section 35 MDBM
Hanford (1950-PR1954), CA 7.5' USGS Quadrangle
O
Project area
Document Path: Z:\Shared\GIS\00 - Fresno Projects\Hanford Group - Mixed-Use Facility (4167)\Projects\06 Report Figures\Arch Survey Report_date\Figure 1-2 Project Location.mxd
0.5 0 0.5 1
Miles
0.5 0 0.5 1
Kilometers
SCALE 1:24,000
1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Feet
Figure 1-3 Aerial view of the Project area.
4 Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project O
Project area
Document Path: Z:\Shared\GIS\00 - Fresno Projects\Hanford Group - Mixed-Use Facility (4167)\Projects\06 Report Figures\Arch Survey Report_date\Figure 1-3 Location Map.mxd Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
600 0 600 1,200
Feet
SCALE 1:6,000
150 0 150 300
Meters
¬«198
Campus Dr
Davis St
W 7th St
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway
Peoples Ditch (modern)
Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project 5 tribal representatives; (4) a pedestrian survey of the Project area to identify potential historical resources within the Project area and preliminary recordation of identified resources on the appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation record form(s); (5) a buried site sensitivity assessment; and (6) recommendations for further work to assess whether the proposed Project would cause adverse impacts to historical resources—i.e., cultural resources eligible for listing on the California Register.
1.2 PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
Æ Senior Archaeologist Diana T. Dyste (M.A.), a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA 39362477), served as project manager and co-author of this report, providing quality oversight and technical guidance. Æ Senior Architectural Historian Carlos van Onna (M.A.) conducted site-specific archival research and prepared the historic context for the Peoples Ditch (P-16-000246/CA-KIN-97H). Æ Senior Archaeologist Dennis McDougall assisted van Onna with research. Æ Staff Archaeologist Ward Stanley completed the archaeological pedestrian survey and, along with Staff Archaeologist Jessica Jones, contributed to the technical report.
Staff Archaeologist/GIS Technician Flavio Silva (Ph.D.) prepared maps, report graphics, and compiled the GIS data. Résumés for key personnel are provided in Appendix A.
1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This technical report was prepared according to California Office of Historic Preservation (1990) standards outlined in Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format and thus fulfills the requirements for the CEQA.
Following this introduction, Chapter 2 describes the natural environment, prehistoric setting, ethnography of the region, and historic setting encompassing the Project area. Chapter 3 discusses the methods used during archival research, buried site sensitivity assessment, and archaeological and built environment surveys. Research findings and results of the survey and buried site assessment are provided in Chapter 4. A summary of findings and cultural resource management recommendations are included in Chapter 5. References cited are provided in Chapter 6, followed by Appendices A–D.
6 Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project
Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project 7 2 PROJECT SETTING
2.1 NATURAL SETTING
The Project is in the San Joaquin Valley, the southern half of an elongated trough called the Great Valley. The Great Valley is a 50-mile-wide lowland that extends approximately 500 miles south from the Cascade Range to the Tehachapi Mountains (Norris and Webb 1990:412).
Between the Mesozoic and Cenozoic eras, the Great Valley served as a shallow marine embayment containing numerous lakes, primarily within the San Joaquin Valley (Norris and Webb 1990:412). Waters began to diminish around 10 million years ago during the late Pliocene and eventually were cut off from the ocean altogether by the formation of the Coast Ranges, leaving tributaries and small lakes that survived until the historic era (Hill 1984:28; Norris and Webb 1990:380).
Much of the Great Valley rests upon thick strata of alluvial sediments washed down from the Sierra Nevada and Coast Ranges during the Quaternary (Norris and Webb 1990). It is this same soil that today makes the valley a fertile agricultural region. Below these levels are layers from the Pliocene and older epochs, which consist of both marine (shale, sandstone) and nonmarine (basalt, andesite) materials. Primary soils have been developed by weathering, seasonal erosion, and mass flood events that cause downward movement of granitic parent material. Secondary soils are formed by a combination of eolian and alluvial forces that have transported granitic and assorted metamorphic and metavolcanic materials along mountain streams (Weir 1956).
Quaternary and recent alluvium covers most of the valley basin (Meyer et al. 2010).
The Project area is in the Tulare Lake Basin hydrologic unit, which includes a portion of one of the San Joaquin Valley’s dominant hydrologic features, the Kings River. Several smaller order creeks and streams flow north into the Kings River toward Hanford, while the westward-flowing Tule River is south of Hanford. Intermittent creeks feed the Kings River, which can remain dry for long periods of the year. However, before historic drainage projects and modern reclamation, seasonal flooding from the Kings River produced extensive wetlands in the valley. Lakes, marshes, and sloughs once covered more than 3,000 square miles in the San Joaquin Valley (Moratto 1984:168). The largest of these was ancient Tulare Lake. The lake existed approximately 25 miles southwest of the Project area and spanned as much as 30 miles from shore to shore (Preston 1981). As more water was historically diverted from major streams for agricultural purposes, the shores of the lake progressively retreated. By the early twentieth century, Tulare Lake had all but disappeared except in unusually wet years when high levels of runoff are released.
The abundance of water near and within the Project area provided a rich habitat for plants and animals in prehistory and through the historic era. Common native plants would have included white and live oaks (Quercus spp.) as well as walnut (Juglans sp.), cottonwood (Populus fremontii), willow (Salix sp.), and tule (Schoenoplectus sp.), and possibly hardstem bulrush (Scirpus acutus) and cattail (Typha sp.). Various grasses, forbs, and sedges would have flourished in the area. A variety of animals lived in and around the Project area prior to the modern era, including mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), white-tailed deer (O. virginianus), tule
8 Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project elk (Cervus sp.), pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), grizzly bears (Ursus arctos californicus) and black bears (U. americanus) (Preston 1981:245–247). These resources provided humans with a diverse range of medicinal, dietary, and other resources used for tool production and other subsistence purposes during prehistory and the historic era.
2.2 CULTURAL SETTING
2.2.1 Prehistory
The San Joaquin Valley prehistoric record is among the least understood of all regions in California. Reconstruction of past cultural patterns has been stymied by two key factors:
geomorphology and human activity (Dillon 2002; Siefkin 1999). The valley floor that encompasses the Project area has been inundated with thick alluvial deposits resulting from granitic and sedimentary outflow from the Kings River, particularly during mass flood events.
This pattern has continued for millennia and has resulted in the burial of early- to mid-Holocene archaeological sites, estimated to be buried at depths of up to 10 meters along the lower stretches of the San Joaquin Valley drainage systems (Meyer et al. 2010; Onken 2020). Thus, compared to other regions in the state, there is a paucity of research and a related lack of data from which to build a complete understanding of past human behavior specific to the valley.
Nevertheless, available data for sites in valley lacustrine environs help identify key cultural changes within the Project area and surrounding environs. The summary of cultural traits presented below is based on a review of San Joaquin Valley lacustrine, riverine, and valley floor site data discussed in Rosenthal et al. (2007). Cultural periods and accompanying dates (given as calibrated calendar years [cal B.C. or A.D.]) are based on Rosenthal et al. (2007:150–159), Moratto (1984:333), McGuire and Garfinkel (1980:49–53), and Bennyhoff and Fredrickson’s chronologies (Fredrickson 1973, 1974).
Archaeological investigations in the Tulare Lake and Buena Vista Lake localities suggest that people occupied the San Joaquin Valley as early as 11,000–12,000 years ago (Fredrickson and Grossman 1977; Riddell and Olsen 1969). Because there has been very little systematic and thorough archaeological excavation in the immediate vicinity of the Project area, it is unclear whether the cultural phases identified in the adjacent foothills or southern valley extend to this area. Although some limited data suggest that phases developed for Yosemite National Park and Buchanan Reservoir for the most recent period of prehistory can be extended to sites in the San Joaquin Valley (Baloian et al. 2006), there is no evidence that this holds true for earlier phases.
The Paleo-Indian Period (11,500–8550 cal B.C.) is represented by ephemeral lacustrine sites dominated by atlatl dart and spear projectile points. The earliest evidence of distinct valley cultural patterns appears during the Lower Archaic Period (8550–5550 cal B.C.) when crescents and stemmed projectile points are first used and evidence appears of dietary use of freshwater fish, waterfowl, mussels, deer, and pronghorn. The Middle Archaic (5550–550 cal B.C.) includes a time, estimated between 5950–3150 cal B.C., when semipermanent villages first appear along riverbanks in tandem with larger, more established lacustrine villages. Stone tools were used in abundance, meanwhile ground stone tool kits emerged along with long-distance trade and exchange networks focused on obsidian, shell beads, and ornaments.
Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project 9 New cultural patterns emerged during the Upper Archaic Period (550 cal B.C. to cal A.D. 1100), especially between 3150–1350 cal B.C. when a distinct shift in burial practices occurred and geographic differences in site and artifact types appeared. The time between 1350–650 cal B.C. is marked by the sudden presence of mound sites in the valley. Widespread proliferation of specialized technology is evident, including new types of bone tools, projectile points, and ceremonial objects such as wands and blades. Paleoethnobotanical studies also suggest the use of labor-intensive and seasonally abundant resources, including acorns, pine nuts, salmon, and shellfish. Similarly, the Emergent Period, extending from cal A.D. 1000 to the historic era, is marked by continued variation in settlement and burial patterns across the valley, coupled with the disappearance of atlatl and dart tool kits that are replaced with bow-and-arrow technology (i.e., small corner-notched and Desert series projectile points) at about cal A.D. 1000. Fishing tool kits expanded to include more efficient harpoons, bone fishhooks, and gorge hooks. In the Tulare basin, pottery obtained via trade appears as well as baked clay balls used for cooking and making carved clay effigies.
2.2.2 Ethnohistory
The Project area is in the Southern Valley Yokuts ethnographic territory. The Yokuts are one of eight subgroups of the Penutian linguistic phylum that is present across the western coast and inland regions of North America from Canada to Mexico (Golla 2011:128). The Yokuts had many language subgroups and spoke a variety of mutually intelligible dialects across the San Joaquin Valley and Sierra Nevada (Golla 2011). The Southern Valley Yokuts populated the shores of Tulare, Buena Vista, and Kern lakes, their connecting sloughs, and the lower portions of the Kings, Kaweah, Tule, and Kern rivers (Latta 1999; Silverstein 1978).
The Tachi Yokut, who were the northernmost of the Tulare Lake tribes, occupied a large area of the Central Valley, extending from the western shores of Tulare Lake northward to the Fresno Slough and westward to the Coast Ranges (Kroeber 1976:484). A major ethnohistoric Tachi Yokut village Wiu (also Waiu, or Mussel Slough) was just south of Lemoore. Wiu is at the present location of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut reservation, approximately 9 miles southwest of the Project area (Kroeber 1976:484).
During the historic era, the general vicinity of Hanford was a seasonal plant, seed, and nut collection area for local tribes. The Tachi Yokut relied on the plentiful supply of lacustrine and riverine resources, including lake trout, chubs, perch, and suckers as well as turtles and freshwater shellfish. Wild seeds and acorns were harvested in the early summer and fall, respectively, and stored for use throughout the year. Waterfowl and other game attracted to the lake supplemented the Tachi Yokut diet.
Intensive European exploration of the San Joaquin Valley Yokuts territory did not take place until the early nineteenth century (Wallace 1978). As a result of European contact with Native American populations in the valley, indigenous populations were significantly reduced by disease. Native American settlement patterns within the valley were disrupted because of recruitment for Missions Soledad, San Luis Obispo, San Antonio de Padua, and San Juan Bautista. Further traumatic impacts to the valley’s Native American population were caused by a series of parasitic (i.e., malaria) and viral (e.g., influenza) epidemics that began in 1833. The
10 Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project diseases struck with such virulence that by 1846 an estimated 40–75 percent of Native Americans had died during outbreaks in California (Cook 1955).
Many Southern Valley Yokuts tribes have survived the effects of colonization, particularly the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe, which has since developed an early childhood education to college success program and has worked to preserve song, dance, and oral history traditions of the Tribe (Golla 2011:154). The Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe is governed by General and Tribal Councils and operates auxiliary departments that serve local Native American populations in areas of governance, healthcare, education, housing, cultural resource management, and administration of the Tachi Palace Hotel and Casino. The Tribe contributes annually to the Kings County fire department, health initiatives, other community welfare programs, and state public use funding programs.
2.2.3 Historical Setting
The first organized Euro-American foray into the western valley occurred in 1806 when Spanish Lieutenant Gabriel Moraga and his men explored stretches of the San Joaquin, Kings, and Kaweah rivers (Cook 1960:247–253). The most relevant exploration was the 1815 travels of Sergeant Juan de Ortega and his band, who camped at a place they called “Chenem” just after crossing the coastal mountains from the Presidio of Monterey (Cook 1960:268). Chenem, which was 32 miles southwest of the Project area, was later occupied and renamed by Mexican settlers, who referred to the place as Posa Chiné or Poso Chané. A 1932 Tulare newspaper article stated:
[At] one time, there were perhaps a dozen Spanish and Mexican families living at the old Posa. They ranged cattle and horses and a few goats. The swamp area was cultivated and they planted trees, vines, and garden truck [Clough and Secrest 1984:40].
In 1854, the Higuera family established a homestead at Posa Chiné/Poso Chané and herded cattle and stock as far as the west shore of Tulare Lake. They likely resided there until 1862–1863 when a flood destroyed the watering hole.
Ranching had been a part of the state’s economy since the Mexican period, and the industry’s growth accelerated as many successful prospectors and businessmen reinvested their profits from the gold rush in cattle and sheep herds. In the early days of ranching, sheep were a valued commodity because they not only could be sold for consumption but could be sheared for their wool. From 1857 to 1871, the amount of wool produced in California increased more than 20- fold, while revenue grew at an average annual rate of 30 percent (Vandor 1919:164). Similarly, cattle provided beef and dairy products as well as hides. Tallow can be rendered from the fat of both cattle and sheep.
In 1850, California gained statehood and the area that was to become Kings County, along with Fresno and several other counties, was part of Mariposa County. Mariposa, truly the “mother of counties,” was the largest county in the state, encompassing more than one fifth of California.
Tulare County was formed from parts of Mariposa County in 1852. Kings County, as it exists today, was formed in 1893 from a portion of Tulare County.
Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project 11
2.2.3.1 Transportation and Development of Hanford
In 1877 the Southern Pacific Railway (SPR) established the city of Hanford at the site of a small Chinese sheepherders’ camp. The city was named after SPR executive James Madison Hanford and soon grew into a hub for railway transportation in the southern central valley (Menefee and Dodge 1913:209). As with other towns in the valley, the SPR greatly contributed to Hanford’s growth in its early years of existence. City streets were aligned with the passing railroad rather than in cardinal directions (Figure 2-1). Blocks contained 32 lots ready for purchase at inflated rates from the railroad company that was granted rights to the land. While many towns in their early days were located a few blocks off the railroad where land was originally purchased at lower prices, by 1892 the town of Hanford was refocused on the rail line (Preston 1981:123– 125). By the early part of the twentieth century, Hanford had a public free library, several churches of various denominations, a fire station, high school, and developed farming districts surrounding the town (Menefee and Dodge 1913:212–216).
Figure 2-1 City of Hanford circa 1892 showing streets and blocks aligned to the SPR tracks (Thompson 1892:58).
12 Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project
2.2.3.2 Agriculture in the Central Valley
Early settlers in the Tulare Lake basin area encountered hogs left from the Spanish-Mexican era.
Hogs were preferred stock over wandering cattle because the animals could be fattened quickly and cuts cured for easy transport (Mitchell 1976:34–37). Large numbers of hogs were fattened in the endless tule reeds surrounding Tulare Lake, then driven to the Sierra foothills in the fall to gorge on ripened acorns (Nordhoff 1874:209). The hog industry helped sustain early EuroAmerican settlers, whose food supplies otherwise had to be transported by wagon from Stockton (Preston 1981:74–75).
Agriculture had been gathering its own momentum since the gold rush. Early efforts to grow wheat without a sufficient water supply met with failure. Before the 1870s and the advent of large-scale water conveyance systems, farms were generally located near a perennial water source. This constraint on early agriculture kept the valley’s two major industries—farming and ranching—in balance within the economy. Competition for real estate was minimized because agricultural interests had little reason to expand into pasturelands that were unsuitable for farming.
By the early 1870s the scales began to tip in favor of agriculture. The construction of extensive irrigation systems, financed by developers like A. Y. Easterby, converted the valley’s dry soils into fertile farmlands. The 1874 “no fence” law underscored the growing dominance of agricultural interests and resulted in both operational and monetary repercussions for the sheep and cattle industry:
The “no fence” law obligated the stock owner to herd his cattle and sheep, whereas before the stock roamed at will and was not assembled except for the annual rodeo. He was also made responsible for damage done by his beasts. The farmer was not required to fence his holdings, though. .. he occasionally did so [Vandor 1919:163].
The “no fence” law was a major setback to ranching; the stockman no longer had the entire extent of the San Joaquin Valley at his disposal and was now burdened with the cost of fencing in his herds and flocks. Nevertheless, the industry continued to grow within the county, albeit not at the same pace as agriculture. The cattle empire of Miller and Lux, which operated well into the twentieth century, owned as much as 145,000 acres of pastureland in Madera County (Barcroft 1933) and utilized additional grazing lands within Kings County (Roberts 2008:79).
While much of the valley was covered in wheat fields in the mid-1870s (Clough 1986), farmers had been experimenting with grape vines and citrus trees since the 1850s. By the 1880s, a nationwide glut in the grain market and attendant drop in the price of wheat caused valley farmers to shift their attention to these newer crops. In a relatively short time, large-scale vineyards and orchards had replaced wheat fields in most regions of the valley.
2.2.3.3 Water Conveyance
Irrigation efforts near the city of Hanford began in the area known as “Mussel Slough,” which contained arid dry soils cut by a single slough connecting the Kings River with Tulare Lake.
Early settlers saw the potential to irrigate this land before the SPR established a railroad through the area. In 1875, local citizens formed the Peoples Ditch Company and quickly began
Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project 13 construction on an irrigation canal through the heart of Mussel Slough country. Despite many setbacks, such as poor engineering, soft collapsing soils, and lack of capital, the Peoples Ditch canal was completed sometime in 1878 or 1879 (Menefee and Dodge 1913:192–193). A remnant segment of this canal is in the eastern half of the Project area, and a modern realignment of the Peoples Ditch intersects the Project area north–south just below Campus Drive (Figure 1-3).
Water typically has been distributed to farmers primarily at the county level through the water companies of the nineteenth century and more recently by such entities as irrigation districts. By the late 1920s and early 1930s, however, it became apparent to the state government that a valley-wide system was necessary to alleviate local shortages (JRP Historical Consulting Services and California Department of Transportation 2000:73–74). The solution was the Central Valley Project (CVP), a multicomponent water conveyance system that included, among other elements, the Delta-Mendota Canal and the Friant-Kern Canal. Funding for such a massive project was beyond the means of the local water concerns, and the State of California was unable to sell the necessary bond issues due to the monetary constraints of the depression.
The state then turned to the federal government, suggesting a role for construction of the CVP in President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. Through a complicated series of negotiations, California officials were finally able to secure federal funding for the project, in part by promoting the project as a major job-creation undertaking—a convincing selling point during the early years of the Great Depression [JRP and Caltrans 2000:74].
Although construction of the CVP began in the late 1930s, labor and material shortages caused by World War II delayed many of the project’s components, and the final stage of construction was not completed until the 1970s.
2.2.3.4 Historical Use and Development of the Project Area Numerous archival resources were consulted to identify historical land use and development in the Project area. These resources include General Land Office (GLO) survey plat maps (1855, 1867, and 1891); an 1892 property atlas; USGS topographic quadrangle maps (1926 and 1954); and aerial photographs from 1934, 1937, and 1942.
No historical structures or features (e.g., roads, trails, ditches) are depicted within the Project area on any of the GLO plats examined. Only an intermittent creek (Dry Creek) is shown meandering roughly east–west through the Project area on the 1855 GLO plat (Figure 2-2).
However, the property atlas map (Thompson 1892:57) shows that most of the Project area consisted of agricultural land owned by H. F. Schumaker, with smaller portions owned by A. L.
Cressey, H. F. Pepys, Mrs. Ada McKelvey, and J. Itin (Figure 2-3). Also depicted is a structure on the Schumaker property within the eastern portion of the Project area, and the Southern Pacific Railroad borders its northern edge. Dry Creek is shown following a southerly course through the Project area. It should also be noted that none of the property owners named above are listed in a contemporary history (Menefee and Dodge 1913) as significant contributors to the growth and development of Kings County.
14 Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project Figure 2-2 Dry Creek present within the Project area prior to irrigation, as depicted on an 1855 GLO Plat.
Figure 2-3 Project area on Thompson’s 1892 Tulare County property atlas showing the structure on H. F.
Schumaker’s property.
A 1926 USGS topographic map (Figure 2-4) shows a structure within the Project area at the approximate location of the structure shown on the Schumaker property in 1892. The 1926 map
Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project 15 also depicts a dirt road leading to this structure from the adjacent property to the east (shown as the property owned by J. Itin in 1892; see Figure 2-3) as well as the Peoples Ditch within the western portion of the Project area and the Southern Pacific Railroad bordering its northern edge.
Figure 2-4 USGS Hanford, California, 1926 topographic map showing location of the structure identified on the 1892 Tulare County atlas and the historical alignment of Peoples Ditch within the Project area.
The structure shown within the eastern portion of the Project area in 1892 and 1926, the Peoples Ditch within the western Project area, and the Southern Pacific Railroad to the north continue to be shown at their respective locations on aerial photographs from 1934, 1937 (Figure 2-5), and 1942, as well as on the USGS Hanford, California, 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle photorevised in 1954 (Figure 2-6). No other structures or features are represented within the Project area. These same archival resources show continued use of the Project area as agricultural land throughout these years.
An aerial photograph of the Project area taken in 1976 (Figure 2-7) shows agricultural activity only in the western Project area. The structure in the eastern Project area has been removed by that year. Unfortunately, archival research did not identify maps or aerial images postdating 1954 and predating 1976 that could help refine the timing of when the structure was removed from the property; however, Figure 2-7 does show that the original alignment of Peoples Ditch in the western Project area was still in use in 1976. Archival data indicate that the original alignment of Peoples Ditch was abandoned sometime between 1994 and 2003, when it was realigned to its present configuration within the Project area (see Appendix D).
P-16-000246/CA-KIN-97H
16 Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project Figure 2-5 1937 aerial photo depicting the alignment of the Peoples Ditch, the history-era residence, and the Southern Pacific/San Joaquin Valley Railroad within the Project area.
Figure 2-6 USGS Hanford, CA 1954 photorevised topographic map showing historical building in eastern portion of the Project area and Peoples Ditch in the western portion.
Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project 17 Figure 2-7 1976 aerial photograph demonstrating removal of historical building in the eastern portion of the Project area and the alignment of the Peoples Ditch at that time in the western portion.
18 Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project
Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project 19 3 METHODS
3.1 RECORDS SEARCH
On April 21, 2020, Ӕ requested a records search of the CHRIS from the SSJVIC at California State University, Bakersfield, to identify previously recorded resources and prior surveys within the Project area and surrounding 0.5-mile area. SSJVIC staff examined site records, files, and maps, and completed searches of the Historic Property Data File, National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, and California Historical Resources databases.
3.2 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH
The purpose of archival research is to provide information regarding the history of land use and to assess the potential for prehistoric and historic-era archaeological deposits within the Project area. Æ’s investigation compiled information from several sources, including:
• Map and Aerial Locator Tool (MALT) (http://malt.library.fresnostate.edu/MALT/); • U.S. Geological Survey TopoView (https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview); • GLO survey plats (https://glorecords.blm.gov/default.aspx); and • Æ’s in-house library, which includes maps and local histories.
3.3 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH
On April 21, 2020, Æ requested that the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) conduct a search of its Sacred Lands File to identify previously recorded sacred sites or cultural resources of special importance to tribes and provide contact information for local Native American representatives who may have information about the Project area. The NAHC responded on April 22, 2020, with its findings and attached a list of Native American tribes and individuals culturally affiliated with the Project area. On August 5, 2020, Æ mailed an outreach letter to each of the contacts identified by the NAHC and kept a log of all responses (Appendix C). The outreach letter and follow-up calls are considered best practices within cultural resource management. Æ’s outreach efforts thus do not qualify as CEQA Assembly Bill 52 governmentto-government consultation, which would be the responsibility of the CEQA lead agency (City of Hanford).
3.4 BURIED SITE SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT
Æ conducted a geologic and hydrologic review of the Project area to assess the potential for paleosols that may contain intact prehistoric cultural deposits. Æ consulted geological maps, historical maps, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service
20 Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project Web Soil Survey online database, and regional geoarchaeological studies (e.g., Meyer et al. 2010). These sources provided information regarding the natural watercourses in the area as well as data about local soils and sediments, parent rock formations, and historical vegetation. This information was used to estimate the age of the sediments surrounding the study area, consider the hydrologic and geologic forces that created and placed these sediments, and assess the likelihood of encountering buried cultural resources within the vertical Project area during proposed construction activity as described in a preliminary geotechnical investigation report for the Project area (AhTye et al. 2020).
3.5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
On May 23 and 24, 2020, Æ Staff Archaeologist Ward Stanley conducted an intensive archaeological pedestrian survey of the entire Project area. Stanley used parallel transects spaced 15–20 meters apart and took photographs of the area using an iPhone 11 camera. Methods and observations were recorded on Æ Daily Work Record and Survey Field Record forms. Stanley used a Trimble Global Positioning System (GPS) unit to collect geospatial data. All photographs and field notes are on file at Æ’s Fresno office.
3.5.1 Documentation of Cultural Resources
Æ recorded cultural resources by first establishing a site boundary that encompasses the distribution of artifacts across the ground surface and then examining potentially temporal diagnostic artifacts to establish the general age of the resource (e.g., prehistoric, historic, postWorld War II, modern). A few artifacts were then collected from the ground surface and transported to the Æ laboratory in Fresno to confirm the age of the resource using Æ library resources and historic artifact guides. All collected artifacts were placed in archival bags labeled with provenience information, which included Project number, site number, Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates, date of collection, and surveyor’s initials. The resources were then recorded on California Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record and Location Map forms.
Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project 21 4 FINDINGS
4.1 RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS
The SSJVIC responded to Æ’s records search request on May 5, 2020 (Records Search File No. 20-168). The SSJVIC reported nine previous cultural studies encompassing portions of the Project area that occurred between 1982 and 2015, and five additional studies in the surrounding
0.5-mile area (see Appendix B). Of the nine studies within the Project area, seven had negative results. The Peoples Ditch (P-16-000246/CA-KIN-97H) is the only previously recorded resource within the Project area. The Southern Pacific Railroad/San Joaquin Valley Railroad (P-16-000122/CA-KIN-177H) is just outside the Project area’s northern boundary. Two additional built environment resources, the Burlington North and Santa Fe Railway (P-16-000120) and a Craftsman bungalow (P-16-000205) are within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project area (Appendix B).
Æ’s in-house cultural resource database revealed that one additional resource, the KingsburgLemoore transmission line, is also within 0.5 miles of the Project area.
4.2 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH
The desktop research resulted in key historical information presented in Section 2.2.3. Specific sources of map and aerial images consulted during archival research are identified in Appendix B.
4.3 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH
The NAHC responded to Æ’s request on April 22, 2020, and stated that its search of the Sacred Lands File did not identify any known cultural resources that could have special importance to Native American groups within the Project area or surrounding 0.5-mile area. However, the NAHC cautioned that the absence of information in the Sacred Lands File does not indicate the absence of Native American cultural resources within the Project area (see Appendix C). The NAHC supplied a list of Native American representatives to be contacted for information regarding sacred or special sites of cultural and spiritual significance in the Project area and surrounding 0.5-mile area, including:
• Stan Alec of the Kings River Choinumni Farm Tribe;
• Chairperson Leo Sisco of the Santa Rosa Rancheria of Tachi Yokut Tribe; • Cultural Resource Director Bob Pennell of the Table Mountain Rancheria; • Chairperson Neil Peyron of the Tule River Indian Tribe; • Chairperson Kenneth Woodrow of the Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band; and
22 Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project • Chairperson Leanne Walker-Grant of the Table Mountain Rancheria.
On August 5, 2020, Æ sent a letter describing the Project to each of the Native American representatives identified above. Follow-up contact by email and telephone was completed on August 13, 2020. No responses have been received to date.
4.4 BURIED SITE SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT
This section assesses the potential for the proposed Project to impact intact buried archaeological deposits in the Project area and identifies the conditions that may affect preservation of cultural materials, should any exist. Estimating the general sensitivity of soils to contain buried archaeological material is based on various factors, including the Project area’s distance from water, age of geological deposits, landform, river formation patterns, ground slope, and soil types within the Project area and their respective characteristics (Rapp and Hill 2006; Waters 1992). In general, the potential for buried prehistoric resources increases with proximity to natural watercourses.
Geologic and soil data derived from the National Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey identify only one soil type within the Project area, consisting of Nord coarse to fine sandy loam. In general, the Nord series has high to very high sensitivity for containing paleosols with intact cultural deposits. Nord sandy loam soil consists of mixed alluvium formed from decomposed granite and sedimentary rock. These soils are found on alluvial fan remnants and floodplains with a slope between 0 and 2 percent. The soil type likely spans the Early to Late Holocene. It is a very deep (i.e., extending 35 feet below the ground surface), well-drained soil with variable salinity and low clay content that supports native grasses, herbs, and white oak (Quercus lobata) (Soil Survey Staff 1999). A geotechnical investigation prepared for the Project area described the soil within 10 feet below the ground surface level as having the potential for hydrocompaction (liquefaction) when exposed to moisture (AhTye et al. 2020:18).
Alluvial fan landforms are typically environments with high potential to contain anthropogenic paleosols, particularly near streams where the effects of continuous high-velocity helical water flow are comparatively less than is observed commonly in larger rivers. However, subsurface conditions composed of well-drained highly saline soils tend to only moderately preserve bone, teeth, and other organic materials (Schiffer 1987). Saline introduced into cultural deposits via groundwater percolation, which is common in agricultural areas, may contribute to an accelerated rate of decay of certain artifact classes. Metals and other porous materials would be most susceptible to corrosion resulting from saline-rich groundwater percolation, particularly with increasing acidic conditions (Kibblewhite et al. 2015; Rapp and Hill 2006). Yet, improved preservation of cultural deposits is expected below the hardpan, as the decomposing effects of excessive water percolation are slowed (Kibblewhite et al. 2015). Thus, the possibility of encountering moderately or well-preserved cultural deposits within the vertical Project area increases with depth. Therefore, the potential for encountering a well-preserved anthropogenic paleosol would be greatest where the hardpan would be encompassed by the vertical Project area. However, moderately preserved and intact cultural deposits could be encountered in any paleosol above the hardpan. An important concept to understand is that even poor to moderately preserved cultural remains may be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or National Register of Historic Places.
Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project 23 In conclusion, the entire Project area is encompassed by a soil type and landform that have high or very high potential for containing anthropogenic paleosols with intact cultural deposits.
Adding to this sensitivity is the presence of Dry Creek within the Project area during prehistory, which would have provided rich habitat and other resources for Native American groups. Dry Creek was a naturally occurring intermittent stream that was modified during Hanford’s early settlement period (see Figure 2-2). However, as can be seen in historical GLO plats, atlases, and aerial images, it is likely that portions of the Project area have been disturbed by past infill of Dry Creek and the construction of Peoples Ditch in addition to impacts related to historic-era agricultural and domestic activities in the eastern portion of the Project area. In these areas of disturbance, the sensitivity for intact and well-preserved buried sites is moderate, low, or none.
This evidence of modern disturbance notwithstanding, due to the very high sensitivity of the soil type in the Project area, and because overexcavation and recompaction of soil is recommended to mitigate the effects of potential hydrocompaction “to at least 7 feet below the existing grade and to a distance of at least 10 feet beyond the perimeter of the planned buildings and surrounding improvements” (AhTye et al. 2020:21), limited subsurface archaeological testing to confirm the presence/absence of anthropogenic paleosols or intact cultural resource deposits is recommended. Based on the findings of subsurface archaeological testing, archaeological data recovery to assess prehistoric cultural deposits and cultural resource monitoring during ground disturbing construction activities may be needed.
4.5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY FINDINGS
4.5.1 Visibility
The Project area is primarily utilized for agricultural purposes. As a result, the landscape is relatively flat and unobscured by pavement or buildings. At the time of survey, the ground surface within the Project area afforded 90–100 percent visibility (Figure 4-1). Isolated patches of dead grass obscured ground visibility in some areas. Moderate amounts of modern trash were encountered throughout the Project area. The inner bank of the modern alignment of Peoples Canal was obscured by dense vegetation and had no ground visibility. The canal bottom had excellent visibility (90–100 percent; Figure 4-2). A small portion of the Project area in the southwest corner was enclosed by a chain-link fence and was not accessible for survey (Figure 4-3).
4.5.2 Archaeological Resources
Æ archaeologists surveyed all accessible portions of the Project area, totaling 42.82 acres of intensive coverage, or approximately 99 percent of the total Project area (Figure 4-3). The southeastern corner of the Project area was inaccessible behind a secured fence and could not be surveyed. The portion not surveyed comprised less than 1 acre and was less than 1 percent of the Project area.
Field staff observed one historic-era refuse scatter (AE-4167-01) and one historic-era isolate (AE-4167-ISO-01). AE-4167-01 is a large historical refuse scatter extending across 6 acres in the northeast section of the Project area. Cultural constituents include glass of various colors, broken bottles, ceramic fragments, insulators, wood fragments, bricks, river cobbles with cement mortar attached, heavy metal pipe fragments, miscellaneous metal fragments, a toy marble, and a bottle
24 Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project Figure 4-1 Survey conditions from the center of the Project area showing 100 percent ground surface visibility, facing west.
Figure 4-2 Survey conditions within and along the modern alignment of Peoples Ditch, facing north.
Figure 4-3 Survey coverage and cultural resources in the Project area.
Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project. 25 Document Path: Z:\Shared\GIS\00 - Fresno Projects\Hanford Group - Mixed-Use Facility (4167)\Projects\06 Report Figures\Arch Survey Report_date\Figure 1-4 Survey Coverage.mxd O
Davis St
¬«198
Campus Dr
W 6th St
W 7th St
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0.1 0 0.1 0.2
Miles
0.1 0 0.1 0.2
Kilometers
SCALE 1:6,000
200 0 200 400 600 800 1,000
Feet
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway
Peoples Ditch (modern)
Project area
Area not surveyed
Survey coverage
AE-4167-01
AE-4167-ISO-01
Peoples Ditch (P-16-000246/CA-KIN-97H)
26 Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project base fragment showing pressure flaking along one edge. A total of 12 temporally diagnostic artifacts were identified; a sample of these are presented in Figure 4-4. The artifacts date to the first half of the twentieth century, suggesting the deposit may be associated with the nonextant historical structure visible on historic-era GLO plats, historical atlas maps, and aerial images.
The site appears to have been impacted by previous agricultural activity that would have displaced artifacts within a few feet of their original placement. The condition of the subsurface deposit is unknown as it was not visible during the pedestrian survey.
AE-4167-ISO-01 is an aqua blue glass insulator fragment that was observed approximately 800 feet west of AE-4167-01 (Figure 4-5).
Figure 4-4 Various glass and ceramic artifact
fragments and a toy marble from
historic site AE-4167-01.
Figure 4-5 Detail view of historical glass
insulator fragment (isolated artifact
AE-4167-ISO-01).
No prehistoric artifact concentrations, isolated artifacts, features, or evidence of human skeletal material were observed during the survey.
4.5.3 Built Environment Resources
A modern segment of Peoples Ditch (P-16-000246/CA-KIN-97H) and the remnants of its older, now abandoned, route were observed during survey (Figure 4-6). Æ updated the site record to reflect the current condition of the historic-era remnant portion (Appendix D).
The Peoples Ditch was constructed in the 1870s by the Peoples Ditch Company to divert water from the Kings River to agricultural operations in the southern San Joaquin Valley and is still in use today (Jones 2017). According to Google Earth imagery, the historical segment of Peoples Ditch that intersects the Project area was abandoned sometime between 1994 and 2003, along with a segment north of the railroad, west of Campus Drive. At that time, Peoples Ditch was realigned and piped under Campus Drive and the railroad tracks for approximately 1,660 feet. It
Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project 27 Figure 4-6 Remnant scar of historical Peoples Ditch within survey area, facing east. resurfaces in the Project area just south of the railroad track and continues to flow south in a J-shaped configuration between the railroad and State Route 198, east of its original alignment, before returning to its historical alignment at State Route 198 (see Figure 4-3). This new segment is less than 50 years old. The only remaining evidence of the original alignment of the ditch is its scar on the landscape and the remains of a concrete containment well at the northern end of the abandoned segment.
28 Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project
Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project 29 5 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Æ provided cultural resource services for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project in Kings County, California. The Hanford Group proposes to build 15 structures that would be utilized for medical outpatient clinic services, hospitality, specialized education, retail, medical offices, skilled nursing and assisted living facilities, and multifamily housing. Ground disturbance resulting from proposed Project activities would include grading; trenching for installation of water, sewer, and electrical infrastructure; construction of a roundabout and buildings, structures, and facilities; and excavation of a storm water retention basin. Thus, the proposed Project requires compliance with CEQA.
Under contract to Epic Management Group, Inc., Æ conducted a cultural resource inventory of the Project area to determine if historical resources are present within the Project area.
Accordingly, Æ performed background research, obtained a records search from the SSJVIC of the CHRIS, requested a search of the NAHC Sacred Lands File, contacted local Native American representatives identified by the NAHC for outreach purposes, assessed the sensitivity of the Project area for containing paleosols that have potential to contain buried archaeological deposits, and conducted an intensive pedestrian survey of the Project area.
The SSJVIC reported that nine previous cultural resource studies encompassing portions of the Project area occurred from 1981 to 2015, and five additional studies were completed in the surrounding 0.5-mile. The Peoples Ditch (P-16-000246/CA-KIN-97H) is the only previously recorded resource within the Project area. Four additional built environment resources were reported within a 0.5-mile of the Project area (Appendix B). The NAHC’s Sacred Lands File search did not identify sacred places within the Project area, and Æ did not receive comments from Native American representatives identified by the NAHC. The buried site sensitivity assessment of the vertical Project area revealed high sensitivity for the presence of anthropogenic paleosols containing buried sites in areas of the Project that have not been disturbed previously by historic-era construction of the People’s Ditch or its modern realignment, or by agricultural activities occurring at depths less than 24 inches below the ground surface. Ӕ’s pedestrian survey of the Project area resulted in the identification of one historic-era refuse scatter (AE-4167-01), one historical isolated artifact (AE-4167-ISO-01). Ӕ additionally updated the existing California Department of Parks and Recreation cultural resource record for the Peoples Ditch to record its remnant historical alignment within the Project area.
To fully comply with CEQA and determine if the Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significant qualities of a historical resource, Æ recommends additional mapping and subsurface testing of AE-4167-01 to evaluate its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources, pursuant to California PRC 5024.1. Additional focused subsurface testing in areas not previously disturbed by historic-era activities is recommended to confirm presence/absence of high-sensitivity paleosols that may include intact prehistoric cultural deposits. If intact prehistoric cultural deposits are encountered during subsurface presence/absence testing, Æ recommends further investigation to determine if the deposit retains
30 Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project integrity and is eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources. The methods and findings of the additional studies would be presented as an addendum to this report and would include cultural resource management recommendations to guide mitigation of potential adverse effects to any identified historical resources within the Project area.
Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project 31 6 REFERENCES
AhTye, Adam, Stephen Plauson, and James Wetenkamp
2020 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Geologic and Seismic Hazards Evaluation Report Proposed Hanford Place, Medical and Mixed-Use Property, Hanford, California. Kleinfelder, Inc., Fresno, California. Prepared for Epic Management Group, Inc., Temecula, California, on behalf of The Hanford Group.
Baloian, Mary Clark, Randy Baloian, Michael J. Moratto, and Barry A. Price 2006 Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation on the Sumner Peck Ranch for the Tesoro Viejo Project, Madera County, California. Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Fresno, California. Prepared for Tesoro Viejo, Inc., Fresno, California.
Barcroft, Joseph (editor)
1933 Madera County History. GenWeb, Madera County, California. Originally published in History of Fresno and Madera Counties, California: Narrative and Biographical, by Lilbourne Alsip Winchell. A. H. Cawston, Fresno, California.
Clough, Charles W.
1986 The West Side’s Twentieth Century Towns. In Fresno County—in the 20th Century:
From 1900 to the 1980s, Vol. 2, edited by Bobbye Sisk Temple, pp. 111–138.
Panorama West Books, Fresno, California.
Clough, Charles W., and William B. Secrest, Jr.
1984 Fresno County—the Pioneer Years: From the Beginnings to 1900, edited by Bobbye Sisk Temple. Panorama West Books, Fresno, California.
Cook, Sherburne F.
1955 The Aboriginal Population of the San Joaquin Valley, California. University of California Anthropological Records Vol. 16(2). University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
1960 Colonial Expeditions to the Interior of California: Central Valley, 1800–1820.
University of California Anthropological Records Vol. 16(6). University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Dillon, Brian D.
2002 Essays in California Archaeology: A Memorial to Franklin Fenenga. In California Paleoindians: Lack of Evidence, or Evidence of Lack?, edited by William J. Wallace and Francis A. Riddell, pp. 110–128. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility Vol. 60. University of California Press, Berkeley.
32 Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project Fredrickson, David A.
1973 Early Cultures of the North Coast Ranges, California. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.
1974 Cultural Diversity in Early Central California: A View from the North Coast Ranges.
Journal of California Anthropology 1(1):41–53.
Fredrickson, David A., and Joel W. Grossman
1977 A San Dieguito Component at Buena Vista Lake, California. Journal of California Anthropology 4(2):173–190.
Golla, Victor
2011 California Indian Languages. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Hill, Mary
1984 California Landscape. California Natural History Guide 48. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
Jones, Jessica
2017 P-16-000245/CA-KIN-97H (People’s Ditch) Primary Record, Linear Feature Record, and Location Map. Applied EarthWorks Inc., Fresno, California. On file, Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, California State University, Bakersfield.
JRP Historical Consulting Services, and California Department of Transportation 2000 Water Conveyance Systems in California: Historic Context Development and Evaluation Procedures. JRP Historical Consulting Services, Davis, California, and California Department of Transportation, Environmental Program/Cultural Studies Office, Sacramento.
Kibblewhite, Mark, Gergely Tóth, and Tamás Hermann
2015 Predicting the Preservation of Cultural Artefacts and Buried Materials in the Soil.
Science of the Total Environment 529:249–263.
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1976 Handbook of the Indians of California. Dover Publications, New York. Originally published 1925, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Reprinted.
Latta, Frank F.
1999 Handbook of Yokuts Indians. 50th anniversary ed. Brewer’s Historical Press, Exeter, California, and Coyote Press, Salinas, California.
McGuire, Kelly R., and Alan P. Garfinkel
1980 Archaeological Investigation in the Southern Sierra Nevada: The Bear Mountain Segment of the Pacific Crest Trail. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Cultural Resources Publications, Bakersfield, California.
Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project 33 Menefee, Eugene L., and Fred A. Dodge
1913 History of Tulare and Kings Counties, California. Historic Record Company, Los Angeles, California.
Meyer, Jack, D. Craig Young, and Jeffery S. Rosenthal
2010 A Geoarchaeological Overview and Assessment of Caltrans Districts 6 and 9:
Cultural Resources Inventory of Caltrans District 6/9 Rural Conventional Highways.
Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis, California. Submitted to California Department of Transportation, District 6, Fresno.
Mitchell, Annie R.
1976 The Way It Was: A Colorful History of Tulare County. Valley Publishers, Fresno, California.
Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.
Nordhoff, Charles
1874 California: Health, Pleasure, and Residence. Harper & Brothers, New York.
Norris, Robert M., and Robert W. Webb
1990 Geology of California. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Office of Historic Preservation
1990 Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
Onken, Jill A.
2020 Geoarchaeological Assessment for the Mowry Bridge Replacement Project, City of Mendota, Fresno County, California. Prepared for Applied EarthWorks, Inc. and Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group. Submitted to City of Mendota.
Preston, William L.
1981 Vanishing Landscapes: Land and Life in the Tulare Lake Basin. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Rapp, George (Rip) Jr., and Christopher L. Hill
2006 Geoarchaeology: The Earth-Science Approach to Archaeological Interpretation. 2nd ed. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.
Riddell, Francis A., and William H. Olsen
1969 An Early Man Site in the San Joaquin Valley, California. American Antiquity 34(2):121–130.
Roberts, Robin Michael
2008 Images of America: Kings County. Arcadia Publishing, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina.
34 Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project Rosenthal, Jeffery S., Gregory G. White, and Mark Q. Sutton 2007 The Central Valley: A View from the Catbird’s Seat. In California Prehistory:
Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 147–163. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.
Schiffer, Michael B.
1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Siefkin, Nelson
1999 Archaeology of the Redtfeldt Mound (CA-KIN-66), Tulare Basin, California. Master’s thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, California State University, Bakersfield.
Silverstein, Michael
1978 Yokuts: Introduction. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 446–447.
Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Soil Survey Staff
1999 Nord Series. Official Series Description. Electronic document, https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/N/NORD.html, accessed August 21, 2020. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Cooperative Soil Survey.
Thompson, Thomas H.
1892 Official Historical Atlas Map of Tulare County. Thos. H. Thompson, Tulare, California.
Vandor, Paul E.
1919 History of Fresno County, California, with Biographical Sketches. 2 vols. Historic Record Company, Los Angeles, California.
Wallace, William J.
1978 Southern Valley Yokuts. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 448–461.
Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Waters, Michael R.
1992 Principles of Geoarchaeology: A North American Perspective. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Weir, Walter W.
1956 Soils of Madera County, California. Soil Survey No. 12. Department of Soils and Plant Nutrition, University of California, Berkeley.
APPENDIX A
Personnel Qualifications
ARCHAEOLOGY | PALEONTOLOGY
CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT www.appliedearthworks.com
DIANA TERESA DYSTE Senior Archaeologist
Areas of Expertise
• Cultural resource management
• Ethnography
• Tribal consultation
• Zooarchaeological,
paleoethnobotanical, and lithics
analysis
Years of Experience
• 20
Education
Ph.D. candidate, Anthropology/
Feminist Studies, University of
California, Santa Barbara
M.A., Anthropology (Archaeology/
Cultural Resource Management
emphasis), University of California,
Santa Barbara, 2010
B.A., Anthropology, University of
California, Santa Barbara, 2002
A.A., Liberal Arts and Sciences,
Ventura College, 1999
Registrations/Certifications
• Registered Professional
Archaeologist 39362477
Permits/Licensure
• Principal Investigator, California
BLM Statewide Cultural
Resources Use Permit CA-18-22
Professional Affiliations
• American Anthropological
Association
• American Cultural Resources
Association
• Santa Barbara Museum of Natural
History
• Society for American Archaeology
• Society for California Archaeology
• World Archaeological Congress
Professional Experience
2018– Senior Archaeologist, Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Fresno, California
2015–2018 Interim Cultural Resources Supervisor and Senior Archaeologist/Ethnographer, Aspen Environmental Group
2007–2009 Archaeologist (GS-9), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Los Padres National Forest
2005–2007 Archaeologist (GS-7), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Los Padres National Forest
2004–2005 Archaeological Contractor, Padre, Inc., Ventura, California
2000–2005 Archaeologist (GS-4/5), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Los Padres National Forest
Technical Qualifications
Ms. Dyste has 20 years of experience in cultural resources management and meets the Secretary of the Interior’s qualification criteria as an archaeologist. She has extensive experience preparing environmental documents and managing complex projects pursuant to applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Her work includes senior review or prime authorship of cultural resources documents for National Historical Preservation Act Section 106, National Environmental Policy Act, and California Environmental Quality Act compliance, including public and tribal comment and response; development of research designs; design and implementation of cultural resources plans. Ms. Dyste is qualified to conduct archaeological survey, including the supervision of small to large sized field crews, as well as zooarchaeological,
paleoethnobotanical, lithics, and ethnographic analyses. She is able to analyze cultural spatial patterns via use of Total Station and Geographic Information Systems software. Ms. Dyste’s Assembly Bill 52 and NHPA Section 106 tribal consultation services are informed by her knowledge and training in Native American jurisprudence, cultural sensitivity training, and graduate seminars in Native American environmental law, indigenous research methodologies, and community-based Participatory Action Research with tribal and special interest groups. She has project experience in coastal, highlands, grasslands, desert, and remote mountain settings across the state of California, although her academic region of specialty is in central and southern California with a focus on Salinan, Esselan,
northern/interior/coastal Chumash prehistoric and modern political tribal groups. Ms. Dyste is a native Spanish speaker and assists clients with the translation of English to Spanish signage and public notices.
ARCHAEOLOGY | PALEONTOLOGY
CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT www.appliedearthworks.com
JESSICA JONES Staff Archaeologist/Project Manager
Areas of Expertise
• Geographic Information Systems
(GIS) in archaeology
• Computer-generated maps and
graphics
• Archaeological survey and
excavation
Years of Experience
• 7
Education
B.A., Anthropology, California State
University, Sacramento, 2013
Archaeological Technician
Certificate, Anthropology
Department, Fresno City College,
Fresno, California, 2011
Affiliations
Society for California Archaeology
Professional Experience
2020– Staff Archaeologist/Project Manager, Applied
EarthWorks, Inc. Fresno, California
2017– Staff Archaeologist/GIS Specialist, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. Fresno, California
2015–2017 Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Technician, Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Fresno, California
2012–2013 Laboratory Technician (volunteer), Archaeological Research Center, California State University, Sacramento 2009–2010 Laboratory Technician (volunteer), Fresno City College, Fresno, California
Technical Qualifications
As a Staff Archaeologist, Ms. Jones performs Native American outreach, archival research, pedestrian archaeological and built environment survey, site recordation and evaluation, and partakes in archaeological excavation for projects throughout the Central Valley and Sierra Nevada foothills. She serves as a primary author or contributor for cultural resource inventory reports and is experienced in the preparation of California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) cultural resource record forms (523 series) and California Department of Transportation cultural resource documents. Ms. Jones has managed several water infrastructure improvement projects in the Central Valley and has working knowledge of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and California Environmental Quality Act regulatory frameworks. Her expertise also includes work as a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technical specialist. She has extensive experience as a cartographer and spatial data manager for large and small projects involving both prehistoric and historic-era built environment cultural resources, particularly linear resources such as historic-era canal systems and related pumps, basins, and other components. Ms. Jones is a critical component of Æ’s digital technology program, responsible for instructing cultural and paleontological staff in the use of ESRI ArcGIS software. Her background also includes extensive experience volunteering in archaeological repositories where she gained expertise in laboratory processing, cataloging, and management of archaeological collections.
ARCHAEOLOGY | PALEONTOLOGY
CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT www.appliedearthworks.com
WARD STANLEY Staff Archaeologist
Areas of Expertise
• California archaeology—Sierra
Nevada
• Survey, excavation, and
Geographic Information System
applications
• Project administration support
Years of Experience
• 10
Education
B.A., Kansas State University, 2008
Permits/Licensure
• Field Director, California BLM
Statewide Cultural Resources Use
Permit CA-18-22
Registrations/Certifications
Wildland Firefighter Qualified
(Arduous)
Professional Experience
2015– Staff Archaeologist, Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Fresno, California
2011–2017 Archaeological Field Technician/Crew Supervisor, Sierra National Forest and Lassen National Forest
2009–2011 Archaeological Field Technician/Crew Supervisor, Malheur National Forest
2008–2009 Archaeological Field Technician, Plumas National Forest Technical Qualifications
Mr. Stanley’s archaeological experience includes survey, archaeological testing, data recovery excavation, and documentation of both prehistoric and historical resources in the Central Valley and Sierra National Forest in California. He has supervised field crews for several large-scale projects for the Sierra, Lassen, and Malheur National Forests. This work included prefield research, pedestrian survey, site recording, and report preparation. Mr. Stanley is knowledgeable about Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and associated regulations and processes; he also has experience working with local Native American tribes. He is well versed in the use of Geographic Information System (GIS) applications, including those for data gathering and modeling, and has prepared maps using ESRI ArcGIS software for use in technical reports and in the field. In addition to working for the Sierra National Forest, he has served as lead archaeological resource advisor on three separate wildland fires and was responsible for coordinating protection of archaeological resources from suppression efforts. Additionally, he produced assessment damage reports for all fires. For Applied EarthWorks, Mr. Stanley has served as field supervisor for implementation of the Crane Valley Hydroelectric Power Project Historic Properties Management Plan, which includes monitoring of impacts to resources and implementing management measures to avoid or minimize adverse effects to historic properties within the Crane Valley Archaeological District.
ARCHAEOLOGY | PALEONTOLOGY
CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT www.appliedearthworks.com
CARLOS VAN ONNA Senior Architectural Historian
Areas of Expertise
• Cultural Resource Management
• Architectural History
• Historic Preservation
Years of Experience
• 8
Education
Ph.D. candidate, Architectural
History, Utrecht University, 2013–
present
M.A., Architectural History and
Historic Preservation, Utrecht
University, 2010–2011
B.A., Art History, Utrecht
University, 2007–2010
Professional Experience
2019– Senior Architectural Historian, Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Fresno, California
2017–2019 Editor/Translator, SDI Media, Los Angeles, California 2016–2017 Subcontractor, GPA Consulting, Los Angeles, California 2015–2016 Project Manager, City of Amsterdam, The Netherlands 2014–2015 Visiting Scholar, Columbia University, New York 2011–2014 Advisor on Cultural History and Urban Development, City of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2010–2011 Intern, Amsterdam Centre for Architecture, The Netherlands
Technical Qualifications
Mr. van Onna has been involved in cultural resources management since 2011. His areas of expertise include built environment investigations, preparation of historic resource evaluation reports, and other required documentation for cultural resource management projects. As a Senior Architectural Historian for Applied EarthWorks, Mr. van Onna meets the Secretary of the Interior’s professional qualification standards in architectural history. He has prepared technical reports for historical built environment resources to satisfy compliance requirements under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including significance evaluations and eligibility recommendations for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). Mr. van Onna has previously worked for the City of Amsterdam, The Netherlands, coordinating its Municipal Landmarks Project and completing numerous built environment surveys, studies, and historical significance assessments for environmental impact reports, zoning plans, and other policy documents. At Applied EarthWorks, he provides guidance and assistance to project managers and staff alongside his core tasks as an architectural historian. Additional skills include archival research, architectural photography, editing, and quality assurance. Through his pursuit of a doctoral degree at Utrecht University, he explores the role of historic preservation in urban public spaces in the United States.
CONFIDENTIAL APPENDIX*
Not for Public Distribution
*Archaeological site location information is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and California Public Records Act (CPRA).
APPENDIX B
Records Search Results
5/5/2020
Diana Dyste
Applied Earthworks, Inc.
1391 W. Shaw Ave., Suite C
Fresno, CA 93711
Re: Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project in the City of Hanford Records Search File No.: 20-168
The Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center received your record search request for the project area referenced above, located on the Hanford USGS 7.5’ quad. The following reflects the results of the records search for the project area and the 0.5 mile radius:
As indicated on the data request form, the locations of resources and reports are provided in the following format: ☐ custom GIS maps ☒ shapefiles
Resources within project area: P-16-000122, 000246
Resources within 0.5 mile radius: P-16-000120, 000205
Reports within project area: KI-00028, 00042, 00093, 00100, 00109, 00111, 00238, 00268, 00269 Reports within 0.5 mile radius: KI-00079, 00094, 00110, 00192, 00310 ResourceDatabasePrintout(list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed ResourceDatabasePrintout(details): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed ResourceDigitalDatabaseRecords: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed ReportDatabasePrintout(list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed ReportDatabasePrintout(details): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Digital DatabaseRecords: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed ResourceRecord Copies: ☒ enclosed ☐ notrequested ☐ nothing listed Report Copies: ☒ enclosed ☐ notrequested ☐ nothing listed Note: PDFs for “Other” Reports were omitted, per the Data Request Form OHP Built Environment Resources Directory: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility: ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed CA Inventory of Historic Resources (1976): ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed
Celeste M. Thomson
Caltrans Bridge Survey: Not available at SSJVIC; please see http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaint/historic.htm Ethnographic Information: Not available at SSJVIC
Historical Literature: Not available at SSJVIC
Historical Maps: Not available at SSJVIC; please see
http://historicalmaps.arcgis.com/usgs/
Local Inventories: Not available at SSJVIC
GLO and/or Rancho Plat Maps: Not available at SSJVIC; please see http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/search/default.aspx#searchTabIndex=0&searchByTypeIndex=1and/or http://www.oac.cdlib.org/view?docId=hb8489p15p;developer=local;style=oac4;doc.view=items Shipwreck Inventory: Not available at SSJVIC; please see http://www.slc.ca.gov/Info/Shipwrecks.html
Soil Survey Maps: Not available at SSJVIC; please see
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Please forward a copy of any resulting reports from this project to the office as soon as possible. Due to the sensitive nature of archaeological site location data, we ask that you do not include resource location maps and resource location descriptions in your report if the report is for public distribution. If you have any questions regarding the results presented herein, please contact the office at the phone number listed above.
The provision of CHRIS Data via this records search response does not in any way constitute public disclosure of records otherwise exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act or any other law, including, but not limited to, records related to archeological site information maintained by or on behalf of, or in the possession of, the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of Historic Preservation, or theState Historical Resources Commission.
Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the CHRIS Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts.
Should you require any additional information for the above referenced project, reference the record search number listed above when making inquiries. Invoices for Information Center services will be sent under separate cover from the California State University, Bakersfield Accounting Office.
Thank you for using the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS).
Sincerely,
Digitally signed by Celeste M. Thomson
Date: 2020.05.05 12:34:07 -07'00'
Celeste M. Thomson
Coordinator
Primary No. Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs Type Age Attribute codes Recorded by Reports
SSJVIC Record Search 20-168
P-16-000120 Resource Name - Burlington
Northern and Santa Fe Railway
(formerly Atchison, Topeka, and
Santa Fe);
Resource Name - CRM TECH
607-7H
Structure Historic AH07 2001 (Bai "Tom" Tang, Daniel
Ballester, CRM Tech)
P-16-000122 CA-KIN-000117H Resource Name - San Joaquin
Valley Railroad, Southern Pacific
Railroad
KI-00109, KI-00245,
KI-00310
Structure,
Site
Historic AH07; HP37 2001 (Bai "Tom" Tang, CRM Tech);
2013 (A. Gardner, L. Bennett, S.
Lewis, Far Western Anthropological
Research Group, Inc.);
2017 (Jessica Jones, Applied
EarthWorks, Inc.)
P-16-000205 Resource Name - 10130 Seventh
Avenue, Hanford Vicinity, Kings
County;
OHP Property Number - 127866;
OTIS Resource Number - 570326
Building Historic HP02 1999 (Douglas W. Dodd, Caltrans
District 6)
P-16-000246 CA-KIN-000097H Resource Name - JKI-002;
Resource Name - People's Ditch;
OTIS Resource Number - 666092
Structure Historic HP20 2001 (Bai "Tom" Tang, Daniel KI-00196, KI-00310 Ballester, CRM TECH);
2009 (Joseph Freeman, Jarma
Jones, JRP Historical Consulting,
LLC);
2017 (Jessica Jones, Applied
EarthWorks, Inc.)
Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources SSJVIC Record Search 20-168
KI-00028 1995 Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project
Woodward-Clyde
Consultants
Hatoff, Brian, Voss, Barb,
Waechter, Sharon, Benté,
Vance, and Wee, Stephen
NADB-R - 1140863 16-000067, 16-000068
KI-00042 1981 Archaeological Survey Report for an
Interchange at 12th Avenue on Route 198,
Kings County 06-KIN-198, R16.4/R17.4 06100-
178200
O'Connor, Denise and Caltrans
Clayton, A.B.
KI-00079 1998 Cultural Resources Assessment for Pacific Bell Mobile Services Facility CV-503-01
Price, Barry A. Applied EarthWorks Inc.
KI-00093 2000 Supplemental Archaeological Survey for te Laguna Irrigation District Transmission Line
Improvement Project, Fresno and Kings
Counties, California
Ryan, Christopher Applied EarthWorks Inc.
KI-00094 2000 Cultural Resources Survey for the Level (3) Communications Long Haul Fiber Optics
Project Segment WS04: Sacramento to
Bakersfield
Far Western Anthropological
Research Group, Inc.
Submitter - Project Nelson, Wendy J. 16-000084
Number 27101
KI-00100 2000 Historical and Cultural Resource Assessment Update Exising Telecommunications Facility
Site No. CV-503-01 Glendale Ave Kings
County, California
Brown and Mills, Inc.
Geotechnical and
Environmental Consultants.
Pastron, Allen G. and
Brown, Keith R.
KI-00109 2002 Historic Property Survey Report: Cross Valley Rail Corridor Project Between the Cities of
Visalia and Huron Tulare, Kings, and Fresno
Counties, California
Love, Bruce and Tang, CRM TECH
Bai "Tom"
16-000067, 16-000068, 16-000086,
16-000122, 16-000123, 16-000124,
16-000127, 16-000128
Submitter - Contract
#675
KI-00110 2002 Archaeological Survey Report: Cross Valley Rail Corridor Project Between the Cities of
Visalia and Huron Tulare, Kings, and Fresno
Counties, California
Love, Bruce and Tang, CRM TECH
Bai "Tom"
Submitter - Contact
#675
KI-00111 2002 Historic Study Report/Historical Resources Evaluation Report: Cross Valley Rail Corridor
Project Between the Cities of Visalia and
Huron Tulare, Kings, and Fresno Counties,
California
Love, Bruce and Tang, CRM TECH
Bai "Tom"
Submitter - Contract
#675
KI-00192 2007 Archaeological Survey Report for the 12th Avenue Interchange on State Route 198,
Hanford, Kings County, California
Far Western Anthropological
Research Group, Inc.
Lanner, David and
Wohlgemuth, Eric
Caltrans - 06-Kin-198,
PM R16.9 (KP R27.2)
EA 06-48750;
Submitter - Contract
No. 06A0852, Task 22
Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources SSJVIC Record Search 20-168
KI-00238 2010 Volume I: A Geoarchaeological Overview and Assessment of Caltrans Districts 6 and 9 -
Cultural Resources Inventory of Caltrans
District 6/9 Rural Conventional Highways - EA
06-0A7408 TEA Grant
Far Western Anthropological
Research Group, Inc.
Meyer, Jack, Young, D.
Craig, and Rosenthal,
Jeffrey
KI-00238A 2010 Volume II: Appendices A Georchaeological Overview and Assessment of Caltrans District
6 and 9 - Cultural Resources Inventory of
Caltrans District 6/9 Rural Conventional
Highways - EA06-0A7408 TEA Grant
Far Western Anthropological
Research Group, Inc.
Meyer, Jack, Young, D.
Craig, and Rosenthal,
Jeffrey S.
KI-00268 2011 Archaeological Survey Report for the California High Speed Train - Fresno to Bakersfield
Section
Greenwald, Alexandra URS Corporation
KI-00269 2015 Archaeological Evaluation of Areas Selected for Possible Nuclear Power Plants by the
LADWP
Schiffman, Robert A. Bakersfield College
KI-00310 2017 Cultural Resources Contstraints Report
Kingsburg-Lemoore Reconductor, Kings
County, California
Jones, Jessica Applied EarthWorks, Inc. 16-000122, 16-000128, 16-000129, 16-000246, 16-000447
Other - PM 74000707
Historical Topographic Maps and Aerial Images Consulted Date Name Author Reference Notes
1934 State Division of Highways C‐3094_z‐104 1934 State Division of Highways. Flown by Fairchild Aerial Surveys. Aerial Survey No. C‐
3094_z‐104,
http://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFin
der/, accessed April 29, 2020.
Historic residence is in the field in the
project area. Southern Pacific Railroad
visible. City is primarily
agricultural/industrial.
1937 Fresno County Aerial Survey
1937 13‐ABJ 67‐78
Agricultural Adjustment
Administration
1937 Fresno County, California, Aerial Survey 1937 13‐ ABJ 67‐78,
http://cdmweb.lib.csufresno.edu/cdm/singleitem/colle
ction/aerial/id/1178, accessed through Map and Aerial
Locator Tool (MALT), Henry Madden Library, California
State University, Fresno, April 28, 2020.
Historic residence is in the field in the
project area. Southern Pacific Railroad
visible. City is primarily
agricultural/industrial.
1942 Fresno County Aerial Survey
1942 ABJ 8B‐157
Agricultural Adjustment
Administration
1937 Fresno County, California, Aerial Survey 1942 ABJ
8B‐157,
http://cdmweb.lib.csufresno.edu/cdm/singleitem/colle
ction/aerial/id/1178, accessed through Map and Aerial
Locator Tool (MALT), Henry Madden Library, California
State University, Fresno, April 28, 2020.
Historic residence is still shown in the
project area. Southern Pacific Railroad
visible. City is primarily
agricultural/industrial. No other updates to
historic landscape.
1926 Hanford, CA 1:31,680 U.S. Geological Survey 1926 Hanford, Calif. , 1:31,680 scale. U.S. National Geologic Map Database, Historical Topographic Map
Collection (topo View),
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/, accessed April 27,
2020.
The Peoples Ditch is shown on the westside
of the project area. The project area is
shown to have been used for agriculture.
1954 Hanford, CA 1:24:000 U.S. Geological Survey 1954 Hanford, Calif. , 1:24,000 scale. U.S. National Geologic Map Database, Historical Topographic Map
Collection (topoView),
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/, accessed April 27,
2020.
The Peoples Ditch is shown on the westside
of the project area. The project area is
shown to have been used for agriculture. No
buildings are shown in the project area.
1891 Township 18 South, Range
21 East
General Land Office 1891 General Land Office Survey Plat, Township 18 South, Range 21 East, Mount Diablo, DM ID
380157. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Land Management General Land Office
Records, https://glorecords.blm.gov, accessed
April 27, 2020.
No roads or other built environment
shown.
1867 Township 18 South, Range
21 East
General Land Office 1867 General Land Office Survey Plat, Township 18 South, Range 21 East, Mount Diablo, DM ID
380161. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Land Management General Land Office
Records, https://glorecords.blm.gov, accessed
April 27, 2020.
No roads or other built environment
shown.
1989 Township 18 South, Range
21 East
General Land Office 1989 General Land Office Survey Plat, Township 18 South, Range 21 East, Mount Diablo, DM ID
380163. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Land Management General Land Office
Records, https://glorecords.blm.gov, accessed
April 27, 2020.
No roads or other built environment
shown.
CONFIDENTIAL APPENDIX*
Not for Public Distribution
*Archaeological site location information is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and California Public Records Act (CPRA).
APPENDIX C
Native American Outreach
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
April 22, 2020
Diane Dyste
Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project, Kings County Dear Ms. Dyste:
A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.
Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].
Sincerely,
Nancy Gonzalez-Lopez
Staff Services Analyst
Attachment
CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño
VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
SECRETARY
Merri Lopez-Keifer
Luiseño
PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk
COMMISSIONER
Marshall McKay
Wintun
COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache
COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]
COMMISSIONER
Julie TumamaitStenslie
Chumash
COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Christina Snider
Pomo
NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contacts List
April 22, 2020
Stan Alec
3515 East Fedora Avenue
Fresno 93726
(559) 647-3227 Cell
Foothill Yokuts
CA Choinumni ,
Kings River Choinumni Farm Tribe
Leo Sisco, Chairperson
P.O. Box 8
Lemoore 93245
(559) 924-1278
Tache
Tachi
Yokut
,CA
(559) 924-3583 Fax
Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe
Leanne Walker-Grant, Chairperson
P.O. Box 410
Friant 93626
(559) 822-2587
Yokuts
,CA
[email protected]
(559) 822-2693 Fax
Table Mountain Rancheria
Bob Pennell, Cultural Resources Director
P.O. Box 410
Friant 93626
(559) 325-0351
(559) 217-9718 - cell
Yokuts
,CA
[email protected]
(559) 325-0394 Fax
Table Mountain Rancheria
Neil Peyron, Chairperson
P.O. Box 589
Porterville 93258
(559) 781-4271
Yokuts
,CA
[email protected]
(559) 781-4610 Fax
Tule River Indian Tribe
Kenneth Woodrow, Chairperson
1179 Rock Haven Ct.
Salinas 93906
(831) 443-9702
Foothill Yokuts
Mono
Wuksache
,CA
[email protected]
Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band
This list is current as of the date of this document and is based on the information available to the Commission on the date it was produced.
Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code,Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code, or Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans Tribes for the proposed:
Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project, Kings County. . Page 652 of 1290
1391 W. Shaw Ave., Suite C
Fresno, CA 93711-3600
O: (559) 229-1856 | F: (559) 229-2019
ARCHAEOLOGY | PALEONTOLOGY
CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT www.appliedearthworks.com
August 4, 2020
Leo Sisco
Chairperson
Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe
P.O. Box 8
Lemoore, CA 93245
RE: Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Project in the City of Hanford, Kings County, California.
Dear Mr. Leo Sisco,
Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) is currently providing cultural resource services to Epic Management Group, Inc. for its Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Project (Project) in the City of Hanford. The 45-acre development would include 15 structures that would cover medical outpatient clinic services, hospitality, specialized education, retail, medical office, skilled nursing and assisted living, and multi-family residences. The project would include a round-about over the top of the Peoples Ditch, and a 5-acre infiltration basin. The project is subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
The Project area is within Townships 18 south, Range 21 east, Section 35 of the Hanford, CA USGS quadrangle (see attached map). If you would like more detailed maps, please contact Æ and we would be more than happy to provide them. A search of the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File was completed on April 22, 2020. The NA HC reported negative results in the Project area; however, the NAHC provided your contact information as someone who may have specific information about the Project area and vicinity.
A record search from the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center has been performed for the Project, and no previously recorded cultural resources were identified within the Project area. Resources identified within
0.5-mile of the Project area include Peoples Ditch (CA-KIN-97H) and the Southern Pacific Railroad (CA-KIN00177H). Æ’s archaeological and built environment pedestrian survey identified a historic-era refuse scatter and isolated historic-era glass fragment, as well as a previously unrecorded segment of the People’s Ditch. No prehistoric archaeologicl sites, features, or isolated artifacts were observed.
Your name and address were provided to us by the NAHC. If you have information on sacred or special sites in the area or if you have an interest in the Project, please call or send a letter to my attention using the address in the header. With your written permission, information shared with Æ about this Project will be included in the technical report documenting this investigation. Pursuant to state and federal laws protecting the confidentiality of archaeological sites and tribal cultural resources will be protected from release to the general public (Pub.
Resources Code § 21082.3[c][1]; NHPA Section 304). I can be reached at the office desk at (559) 229-1856 X123, by cell at (559) 907-6028, or by email at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Diana Dyste,
Senior Archaeologist
encl.: Project Map
EXAMPLE
Township 18S /Range 21E, Section 35
Hanford (1950-PR1954), CA 7.5' USGS Quadrangle
NAHC location map for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project - AE4167.
CONFIDENTIAL—NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Survey Area
0.5 0 0.5 1
Miles
0.5 0 0.5 1
Kilometers
SCALE 1:24,000
1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Feet
Do cument Path: Z:\Shared\GIS\00 - Fresno Pro jects\Hanfo rd Gro up - Mixed-Use Facility (4167)\Pro jects\02 Reco rds Search\NAHC_Hanfo rd.mxd
APPENDIX D
Cultural Resource Records
State of California — The Resources Agency Primary # 16-000246 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #/Trinomial CA-KIN-97H
CONTINUATION SHEET
☐ Continuation ☒ Update
DPR 523L (1/95)
*P2. Location: a. County: Kings ☐ Not for Publication ☒ Unrestricted b. USGS 7.5′ Quad:Hanford, CA Date: 1950, photorev. 1954 T18S, R21E; SE ¼ of NW ¼ of Sec. 35 MD B.M. c. Address: N/A
d. UTM:
e. Other Locational Data: From the intersection of 11th Street and West Lacey Blvd. in Hanford, CA, drive west for
0.4 miles on West Lacey Blvd. Turn left (south) onto Campus Drive and proceed for 0.4 miles. At this point the road terminates and the modern segment of the People’s Ditch continues south. The remnant of the historical alignment is west of the modern segment and north of State Route 198. *P3a. Description: This update includes a 1,327-foot remnant segment of People’s Ditch between the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway tracks in the north and State Route 198 in the south. According to Google Earth imagery, this segment was abandoned sometime between 1994 and 2003, along with a segment north of the railroad west of Campus Drive. At that time, People’s Ditch was realigned and piped under Campus Drive and the railroad tracks for a distance of approximately 1,660 feet. It resurfaces just south of the railroad tracks and continues to flow south in a J-shaped configuration between the railroad and State Route 198 east of its original alignment before crossing under the highway and continuing south parallel to its historical alignment. This new segment is less 50 years old. The ditch’s remnant historical segment has been all but erased from the landscape in this area. Remains of a concrete containment well are visible at the northern end of the remnant segment.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP11. Engineering Structure
*P7. Owner and Address: Peoples Ditch Company, 870 Greenfield Ave, Hanford, CA 93230 *P8. Recorded By: Carlos van Onna, Applied EarthWorks, Inc., 1391 W. Shaw Ave., Suite C, Fresno, CA 93711 *P9. Date Recorded: 5/23/2020
*P10. Survey Type: ☒ Intensive ☐ Reconnaissance ☐ Other Describe:
*P11. Report Citation: Dyste, Diana T., Jessica Jones, Dennis McDougall, Ward Stanley, and Carlos van Onna 2020 Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project in the City of Hanford, Kings County, California. Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Fresno, California. Prepared for The Hanford Group, c/o Epic Management Group, Inc., Temecula, California. *Attachments: ☐ NONE ☒ Location Map ☒ Sketch Map ☐ Continuation Sheet ☐ Building, Structure, ☐ Archaeological Record ☐ District Record ☐ Linear Feature Record and Object Record ☐ Milling Station Record ☐ Rock Art Record ☐ Artifact Record ☐ Photograph Record ☒ Other (list): Location Map showing route entire ditch
State of California The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
LOCATION MAP
TRUE NORTH
0.5 0.25 0 0.5
Miles
0.5 0.25 0 0.5
Kilometers
500 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500
Feet
Resource Name or #: People’s Ditch Scale: 1:15,000
Primary # 16-000246
HRI#
Trinomial CA-KIN-97H
Map Name: Hanford, CA, USGS 7.5' quadrangle Date: 1950 (1954) Historic-era Remnant
of People's Ditch
SCALE1:15,000
State of California The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
SKETCH MAP
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
TRUE NORTH
0.5 0.25 0 0.5
Miles
0.5 0.25 0 0.5
Kilometers
500 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500
Feet
Resource Name or #: People’s Ditch
Primary # 16-000246
HRI#
Trinomial CA-KIN-97H
Historic-era Remnant
of People's Ditch
SCALE1:15,000
Modern Segment
198
Campus Dr
12th Ave
N 11th Ave
Hanford Armona Rd
State of California The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
LOCATION MAP
BURRIS PARK
LATON
BURRIS PARK
REMNOY
LATON
RIVERDALE
LATON
HANFORD
HANFORD
REMNOY
LEMOORE
HANFORD
TRUE NORTH
4 2 0 4
Miles
4 2 0 4
Kilometers
4,000 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 16,000 20,000 24,000 28,000
Feet
Resource Name or #: People’s Ditch Scale: 1:120,000
Primary # 16-000246
HRI#
Trinomial CA-KIN-97H
Map Name: Multiple, CA, USGS 7.5' quadrangle(s) Date: Multiple Historic-era Remnant
of People's Ditch
SCALE1:120,000
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California — The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date