another along plate boundaries. California is particularly susceptible to such plate movements, notably the largely horizontal or “strike-slip” movements of the Pacific Plate, as it impinges on the North American Plate. In general, earthquakes occur when the accumulated stress along a plate boundary or fault is suddenly released, resulting in seismic slippage. This slippage can vary widely in magnitude, ranging in scale from a few millimeters or centimeters to tens of feet. “There are three faults within the region that have been, and will be, principal sources of potential seismic activity within Tulare County. These faults are described below:
▪ San Andreas Fault. The San Andreas Fault is located approximately 40 miles west of the Tulare County boundary. This fault has a long history of activity, and is thus the primary focus in determining seismic activity within the county. Seismic activity along the fault varies along its span from the Gulf of California to Cape Mendocino. Just west to Tulare County lies the “Central California Active Area,” where many earthquakes have originated. ▪ Owens Valley Fault Group. The Owens Valley Fault Group is a complex system containing both active and potentially active faults, located on the eastern base of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The Group is located within Tulare and Inyo Counties and has historically been the source of seismic activity within Tulare County.
▪ Clovis Fault. The Clovis Fault is considered to be active within the Quaternary Period (within the past two million years), although there is no historic evidence of its activity, and is therefore classified as “potentially 3-99
active.” This fault lies approximately six miles south of the Madera County boundary in Fresno County. Activity along this fault could potentially generate more seismic activity in Tulare County than the San Andreas or Owens Valley fault systems. In particular, a strong earthquake on the Fault could affect northern Tulare County. However, because of the lack of historic activity along the Clovis Fault, inadequate evidence exists for assessing maximum earthquake impacts.” (see Tulare County General Plan 2030 Update Background Report, pages 8-6 and 8-7 at:
https://generalplan.co.tulare.ca.us/documents/GeneralPlan2010/Appendi x%20B%20-%20Background%20Report.pdf).
“Older buildings constructed before current building codes were in effect, and even newer buildings constructed before earthquake resistance provisions were included in the current building codes, are most likely to suffer damage in an earthquake. Most of Tulare County’s buildings are no more than one or two stories in height and are of wood frame construction, which is considered the most structurally resistant to earthquake damage. Older masonry buildings (without earthquake-resistance reinforcement) are the most susceptible to structural failure, which causes the greatest loss of life. The State of California has identified unreinforced masonry buildings as a safety issue during earthquakes. In high-risk areas (Bay Area) inventories and programs to mitigate this issue are required.
Because Tulare County [geographic area] is not a high-risk area, state law only recommends that programs to retrofit URMs are adopted by jurisdictions.” (see Tulare County General Plan 2030 Update Background Report, page 8-8 at:
https://generalplan.co.tulare.ca.us/documents/GeneralPlan2010/Appendix%20B% 20-%20Background%20Report.pdf).
As shown in the California Department of Conservation, CA Geological Survey, the Project site is not located within an earthquake fault zone. (See:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/eqzapp/#data_s =id%3AdataSource_4-191d8e6d993-layer-25%3A5083120)
Landslides
Landslides are gravity-driven movements of earth materials that can include rock, soil, unconsolidated sediment, or combinations of such materials. The rate of landslide movement can vary; some move rapidly, as in a soil or rock avalanche, while other landslides creep or move slowly for long periods of time. The susceptibility of a given area to landslides depends on many variables, although the general characteristics that influence landslide hazards are widely acknowledged. Some important factors are:
3-100
• Slope Material. Loose, unconsolidated soils and soft, weak rocks are more hazardous than are firm, consolidated soils or hard bedrock. • Slope Steepness. Most landslides occur on moderate to steep slopes. • Structure and Physical Properties of Materials. This includes the orientation of layering and zones of weakness relative to slope direction. • Water Content. Increased water content increases landslide hazard by decreasing friction and adding weight to the materials on a slope. • Vegetation Coverage. Abundant vegetation with deep roots promotes slope stability.
• Proximity to Areas of Erosion or Human-made Cuts. Undercutting slopes can greatly increase landslide potential.
• Earthquake Ground Motions. Strong seismic ground motions can trigger landslides in marginally stable slopes or loosen slope materials, and also increase the risk of future landslides.
The Project site does not contain areas susceptible to landslides.
Regulatory Setting
Federal
Paleontological Resources Preservation Act
The federal Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2002 limits the collection of vertebrate fossils and other rare and scientifically significant fossils to qualified researchers who have obtained a permit from the appropriate state or federal agency. Additionally, it specifies these researchers must agree to donate any materials recovered to recognized public institutions, where they will remain accessible to the public and to other researchers.
This act incorporates key findings of a report, Fossils on Federal Land and Indian Lands, issued by the Secretary of Interior in 2000, which establishes that most vertebrate fossils and some invertebrate and plant fossils are considered rare resources.
State
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface fault rupture to structures used for human occupancy.2 The main purpose of this act is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on top of active faults.
This act only addresses the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards, such as earthquake induced liquefaction or landslides.3 This act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones (known as Earthquake Fault Zones or Alquist- 3-101
Priolo Zones) around surface traces of active faults, and to issue appropriate maps.4 The maps, which are developed using existing United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle map bases, are then distributed to all affected cities, counties, and state agencies for their use in planning and controlling new or renewed construction. Generally, construction within 50 feet of an active fault zone is prohibited.
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, which was passed in 1990, addresses seismic hazards such as liquefaction and seismically induced landslides. Under this act, seismic hazard zones are mapped by the State Geologist to assist local governments in land use planning. Section 2691(c) of this act states that “it is necessary to identify and map seismic hazard zones in order for cities and counties to adequately prepare the safety element of their general plans and to encourage land use management policies and regulations to reduce and mitigate those hazards to protect public health and safety.” Section 2697(a) of the act states that “cities and counties shall require, prior to the approval of a project located in a seismic hazard zone, a geotechnical report defining and delineating any seismic hazard.
California Building Code
The State of California provides a minimum standard for building design through Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), commonly referred to as the California Building Code (CBC). The CBC is in Part 2 of Title 24. The CBC is updated every three years (it is currently being updated for Year 2026). It is generally adopted on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, subject to further modification based on local conditions. They also regulate grading activities, including drainage and erosion control. The CBC contains general building design and construction requirements relating to fire and life safety, structural safety, and access compliance. CBC provisions provide minimum standards to safeguard life or limb, health, property, and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location and maintenance of all buildings and structures and certain equipment. Through the CBC, the State provides a minimum standard to protect property and public safety by regulating the design and construction of excavations, foundations, building frames, retaining walls, and other building elements to mitigate the effects of seismic shaking and adverse soil conditions. They also regulate grading activities, including drainage and erosion control.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Paleontological resources are afforded protection under the CEQA. The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology has set significance criteria for paleontological resources. Most practicing professional vertebrate paleontologists adhere closely to the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology’s assessment, mitigation, and monitoring requirements as specifically provided in its standard guidelines. Most State regulatory agencies with paleontological laws, 3-102
ordinances, regulations, and standards accept and use the professional standards set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology.
California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097
PRC Section 5097.5 prohibits the destruction or removal of any paleontological site or feature from public lands without the permission of the jurisdictional agency.
California Penal Code Section 622.5
The California Penal Code Section 622.5 details the penalties for damage or removal of paleontological resources, whether from private or public lands.
Regional
Tulare County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) The Tulare County Office of Emergency Services prepared the MJHMP together with several jurisdictions in Tulare County, including the Tule River Tribe. The MJHMP was prepared in accordance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and followed the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2011 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan guidance. The most recent MJHMP, adopted in 2023, includes hazard mitigation goals, strategies, and priorities, and provides a comprehensive assessment of the area’s hazards and vulnerabilities. The MJHMP is a guide to hazard mitigation throughout Tulare County and serves as a tool to help decision makers direct hazard mitigation activities and resources. In the context of the MJHMP, mitigation is an action that reduces or eliminates long-term risk to people and property from hazards, including those occurring naturally, such as earthquakes, and those caused by humans as well.
Local Regulations
None that apply to the Project.
Discussion
a) Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i.Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
3-103
No Impact: The proposed Project does not include any new permanent structures intended for human occupancy. No substantial faults are known to traverse Tulare County according to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Maps and the California Department of Conservation. The proposed Project site is located on solid rock formation and is not at risk from subsidence, liquefaction, or sliding. Also, as noted earlier, the CA Geological Survey indicates that the Project site is not located within an earthquake fault zone. As such, the Project site would not experience surface rupture in the event of an earthquake. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, there would be no impact. ii.Strongseismicgroundshaking?
Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed Project comprises of bedrock. Ground shaking is responsible for most of the damage from earthquakes and can damage or destroy buildings, structures, pipelines, and infrastructure. The intensity of shaking depends on the type of fault, distance to the epicenter, magnitude of the earthquake, and subsurface geology. The Clovis Fault, Owens Valley Fault Group, and San Andreas Fault are potentially capable of producing the most intense ground accelerations. All new components of the Project would be constructed pursuant to the proposed project would be designed to meet current design standards in the latest CBC. Project design features would reduce the exposure of people and structures to harm from strong ground-shaking hazards such that there would not be a significant impact. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, the impact would be less than significant. iii.Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact:. Secondary effects of earthquakes are nontectonic processes such as ground deformation, including fissures, settlement, displacement, and loss of bearing strength, and are the leading causes of damage to structures during a moderate to large earthquake.
Secondary effects could lead to ground deformation, including liquefaction, lateral spreading, seismically induced landslides, and ground lurching. The Project would be entirely located on bedrock that would not be conducive to ground failure, including liquefaction. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, there would be no impact.
iv.Landslides?
No Impact: The proposed Project Site is located on bedrock and although near hills to the east, the slopes of the hills in the area are short in length and have minimal slopes resulting in no potential for landslides. No geologic landforms exist on or near the Project Site, as such, it is unlikely that a landslide event would occur. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, no impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
3-104
b)Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No Impact: As noted earlier, the Project site is located on bedrock with shallow surface soils, the potential for erosion is low. However, construction-related activities and increased impermeable surfaces can increase the probability for erosion to occur. Constructionrelated impacts related to erosion would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent.
The CBC provides regulations for construction to provide proper grading, drainage, and erosion and sediment control. Erosion-control measures can include seeding slopes, installation of temporary dikes and swales, placement of straw bales and filter fences, outlet protection, grass-lined swales, and installation of sediment retention structures, as appropriate for specific sites. In addition,
Adherence to existing regulatory requirements such as the CBC grading and drainage requirements, would ensure that impacts associated with substantial erosion and loss of topsoil in the Project site would be avoided or minimized. The Project site would be required to implement best management practices (BMPs) as specified by a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which are developed to prevent significant impacts related to erosion from construction-related activities. Impacts related to erosion would be limited to construction-related activities and would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent. As such, based on the analysis and information provided herein, there would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
c) Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? No Impact: As addressed in response to earlier Items a) and b), the Project site is not situated in an area susceptible to landslides, liquefaction, or other geological hazards.
Lateral spreading, induced by liquefaction, occurs when seismic ground shaking causes slopes with saturated soils to liquefy and flow toward the open slope face. However, the Project site lacks significant slopes, which would minimize if not entirely neutralize this concern. Ground subsidence generally occurs when overdrafts from a groundwater basin diminish the upward hydraulic pressure that supports the land surface above, leading to the consolidation or settlement of the underlying soils. Additionally, geological hazards would be accounted for through the implementation of seismic standards outlined by the California Building Code. Therefore, based on the analysis and information contained herein, there would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
3-105
d) Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? No Impact: As noted earlier, the Project site is generally located on shallow soil (with an approximate depth of 36”) lain over bedrock. Prior to initiation of construction-related activities of the Project site, potential geological or seismic hazards would be identified early in the process and soil characteristics would be evaluated that would determine if the soils are expansive. Typically, proposed development on expansive soils follows regulations imposed by the CBC, such as standards for seismic safety, excavation, foundations, retaining walls, site demolition, and grading activities, including drainage and erosion control. Specific engineering methods that could be used to reduce the impact of expansive soils include drainage-control devices to limit water infiltration near foundations, overexcavation and re-compaction of engineered fill method, or support of the foundation with piles. Compliance with state, regional, and local regulations pertaining to structural safety regarding a geologic unit or soils that are unstable and could result in landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse, and would ensure that results from implementation of the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risks to life or property. As noted earlier, as the Project Site is generally located on shallow soil lain over bedrock, it is not in an area with expansive soils.
Because the soils associated with the Project do not exhibit shrink-swell behavior, implementation of the Project would not pose a risk to life or property caused by expansive soils. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, there would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
e) Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No Impact: The proposed Project would not use septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, no impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
f) Wouldthe Projectdirectly or indirectly destroy auniquepaleontological resource or Siteor unique geologic feature?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: “Paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) are considered nonrenewable scientific resources because once destroyed, they cannot be replaced. As such, paleontological resources are afforded protection under the state and local laws and regulations briefly discussed in this chapter. Federal laws and 3-106
regulations only apply when projects are located on federal lands or federally managed lands, or when they are federally funded.” (South County Detention Facility Draft Environmental Impact Report. Appendix “Historic Resource Report 1545 & 1591 South Newcomb Street, Porterville, CA” February 2013. Page 2 of Appendix C, “Paleontological Resources Assessment Report for the South County Detention Facility Project, Porterville, Tulare County, California” Appendix C. Prepared by Applied EarthWorks, Inc. February 2013.
Resolution No. 2013-0390).
“Paleontological resources comprise fossils – the remains or traces of once-living organisms preserved in sedimentary deposits – together with the geologic context in which they occur. Sedimentary deposits include unconsolidated or semi-consolidated “soils” or sedimentary rocks. Most fossil remains are the preserved hard parts of plants or animals, and include bones and/or teeth of once-living vertebrate animals, shells or body impressions of invertebrate animals, and impressions or carbonized or mineralized parts of plants (e.g. “petrified wood”). Trace fossils include preserved footprints, trackways, and burrows of prehistoric animals and root marks created by plants. Fossils are scientifically important as they provide the only available direct evidence of the anatomy, geographic distribution, and paleoecology of organisms of the past. Scientific studies based on fossils and comparisons between them continue to refine details of the basic history of life. In conjunction with physical geologic investigations, the use of fossils as indicators of geologic time and ancient environments also contributes to understanding of the physical history of the earth, the distribution of mineral resources, dynamics of earth processes, and past climatic changes.” (Sequoia Gateway Commerce and Business Park Specific Plan DEIR SCH No. 2015081056, page. 3.5-3. Prepared by Bert Verrips Environmental Consulting. September 2018, accessed at: https://tularecounty.ca.gov/rma/projects/planning-projects/applicantprojects/sequoia-gateway-commerce-park/); Certified and adopted by the Tulare County Board of Supervisors December 4, 2018. Resolution No. 2018-0938.) Potential for fossils to occur within Project Area can be based on geologic indicators.
Quaternary period deposits consist of alluvial material that can be conducive to preserving once-living organisms in sedimentary deposits wherein, over time, the once-living organisms became fossilized. The Project area lies within metamorphic rock (Pre-Cenozoic period) and is east of Quaternary period deposits. (see GeoScienceWorld Research Article April 1, 2013; page 193 by John Wakabayashi which can be accessed at:
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geosphere/article/9/2/191/132574/paleochannelsstream-incision-erosion-topographic). “The Quaternary period includes the older Pleistocene Epoch (about 2.6 million to 10,000 years ago) and the Holocene (Recent) Epoch, which includes approximately the last 10,000 years. The Pleistocene Epoch is informally termed the Ice Age, and this is the depositional period which yields vertebrate fossils, and therefore deposits from this period are considered highly sensitive for paleontological resources. The Holocene deposits, which comprise more recent layers that were deposited on top of the Pleistocene material, yield few if any vertebrate fossils, and thus are considered 3-107
to have a low sensitivity for paleontological resources. However, since Holocene strata have some potential to preserve fossil materials, there is always a possibility of fossil discoveries in these younger materials. In the eastern San Joaquin Valley, the thickness of the Holocene deposits overlying the Pleistocene deposits generally increases with distance westward from the lower foothills of the Sierra.” (Sequoia Gateway Commerce and Business Park Specific Plan DEIR (SCH No. 2015081056). page. 3.5-4. Prepared by Bert Verrips Environmental Consulting. September 2018. Certified and adopted by the Tulare County Board of Supervisors December 4, 2018. Resolution No. 2018-0938) No paleontological resources or sites, or unique geologic features have previously been encountered on the proposed Project site. As noted earlier, a cultural resources records search was conducted of the site. No archaeological deposits or isolated finds were identified during that search. Although it cannot conclusively be demonstrated that no subsurface paleontological resources are present, it is possible to mitigate potentially significant impacts with Mitigation Measure GEO-1. With the implementation the Mitigation Measure GEO-1 Project-specific impacts related to this Checklist Item will be reduced to a Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Regardless of type, development would be required to comply with the federal Paleontological Resources Preservation Act that limits the collection of vertebrate fossils and other rare and scientifically significant fossils to qualified researchers who have obtained a permit from the appropriate state or federal agency and the California Public Resources Code Section 5097 that prohibits the removal of any paleontological site or feature from public lands without the permission of the jurisdictional agency. Ground-disturbing construction-related activities (e.g., grading and excavation) associated with the Project site could uncover fossilized remains of organisms from prehistoric environments that have not been recorded. The implementation protocols and adherence to the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards would ensure the protection of unique paleontological resources during construction-related activities.
There are no unique geologic features or known paleontological resources located within the Project site. Compliance with state, regional, and local regulations pertaining to paleontological resources, would ensure that the Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature. However, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 is required in the event of inadvertent discovery of a paleontological resource to ensure potential impacts are not significant. Therefore, based on the analysis and information contained herein, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measure: See GEO-1
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: If a suspected unique paleontological resource were to be discovered during construction of the Project, the following protocol shall be implemented:
• If a potentially significant paleontological resource is encountered during ground disturbing activities, all construction within a 100-foot radius of the find shall immediately 3-108
cease until a qualified paleontologist meeting the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards has evaluated the find in accordance with federal, state, and local guidelines.
If it is determined to be a unique resource, such measures may include avoidance, preservation in place, data recovery and associated documentation, or other appropriate measures. Construction activity may continue unimpeded in other portions of the Project Site. whether the resources requires further study. The Project Manager shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. The paleontologist shall notify the City of Porterville and/or a Tribal representative or other designee (e.g., the project manager) of the procedures that must be followed before construction-related activity is allowed to resume at the location of the find.
Cumulative Impact: Less than Significant
The geographic area of this cumulative analysis is Tulare County and the Tule River Reservation. Although it cannot conclusively be demonstrated that no subsurface paleontological resources are present, it is possible to mitigate potentially significant impacts with Mitigation Measure GEO-1. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, Projectspecific impacts related to this Checklist Item will be reduced to Less Than Significant levels.
The Project site would not result in significant impacts related to geology and soils. Although the Project site includes some potentially significant hazards resulting from strong ground shaking, the Project would be subject to regulations pertaining to seismic safety as required by CBC requirements. Compliance with these requirements would, to the maximum extent practicable, reduce cumulative Project-related impacts that pertain to seismic shaking, seismic-related ground failure, seismically induced landslides, soil erosion, and unstable soils.
Similarly, compliance with relevant requirements of the CBC, would minimize the cumulative impacts associated with substantial erosion or loss of topsoil. In the unlikely event that previously unknown resources are discovered during construction-related activities the find would be evaluated on its own merits. Cumulative development in adjacent jurisdictions would be subject to the same federal, state, and local regulations. Since impacts associated with geology and soils are by their nature focused on specific sites or areas, a less-than significant impact within the Project site to avoid impacts related to geology and soils from the proposed Project, would not contribute to a cumulative increase in hazards in the immediate Tulare County or the Tule River Reservation areas. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, cumulative impacts associated with geology and soils would be less than significant; with the exception of paleontological resources which would require mitigation as specified earlier.
3-109
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Qualified consultants Core Environmental Consulting, LLC., prepared the “Technical Report Health Risk Assessment for Tule Active Transportation Plan Phase I” (HRA Report) project which is used to provide technical expertise support regarding air quality, greenhouse gas, and health risk assessment items of this MND. The HRA Report is included in its entirety as Appendix A of this MND.
Where necessary, and if available, additional site-specific facts, data, information, etc., are included in this discussion.
Environmental Setting
Climate Change is a change in the average weather of the earth that may be measured by alterations in wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperatures. These changes are assessed using historical records of temperature changes occurring in the past, such as during previous ice ages. Many of the concerns regarding climate change use this data to extrapolate a level a statistical significance, specifically focusing on temperature records from the last 150 years, the Industrial Age, which differ from previous climate changes in rate and magnitude.
In California, climate change may result in consequences such as the following form (CCCC 2006 and Moser et al. 2009).
1. A reduction in the quality and supply of water to the State from the Sierra snowpack.
2. Increased risk of large wildfires.
3. Reduction in the quality and quantity of certain agriculture products.
4. Exacerbation of air quality problems.
5. A rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of coastal businesses and residences.
6. Damage to marine ecosystems and their natural environment.
7. An increase in infections, disease, asthma, and other health-related problems.
8. A decrease in the health and productivity of California’s forest. (CCCC 2006 and Moser et al. 2009)
3-110
Greenhouse Gases (GHG) are gases that trap heat in the atmosphere and the presence of GHGs in the atmosphere affects the earth’s temperature. The effect is equivalent to the way a greenhouse retains heat. Natural processes and human activities emit greenhouse gases.
Common GHGs include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, chlorofluorocarbons, hydro chlorofluorocarbons, hydro fluorocarbons, per fluorocarbons, sulfur, and hexafluoride. Human activities, such as electricity production and vehicle use, have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere beyond the level of naturally occurring concentrations.
GHGs as defined by AB 32 include the following gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. GHGs as defined by AB 32 and sources are summarized in Table 3-10.
Table 3-10: Greenhouse Gases; Source: EPA, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Greenhouse
Gas
Description and Physical
Properties Lifetime GWP Sources
Methane (CH4)
Is a flammable gas and is
the main component of
natural gas
12 years 21
Emitted during the production
and transport of coal, natural
gas, and oil. Methane
emissions also result from
livestock and other agricultural
practices and by the decay of
organic waste in municipal
solid waste landfills.
Carbon dioxide
(CO2)
An odorless, colorless,
natural greenhouse gas.
30-95
years
1 Enters the atmosphere through
burning fossil fuels (coal,
natural gas and oil), solid
waste, trees and wood
products, and also as a result
of certain chemical reactions
(e.g., manufacture of cement).
Carbon dioxide is removed
from the atmosphere (or
"sequestered") when it is
absorbed by plants as part of
the biological carbon cycle.
3-111
Table 3-10: Greenhouse Gases; Source: EPA, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Greenhouse
Gas
Description and Physical
Properties Lifetime GWP Sources
Chlorofluorocarbons
Gases formed
synthetically by replacing
all hydrogen atoms in
methane or ethane with
chlorine and/or fluorine
atoms. They are non-toxic
nonflammable, insoluble
and chemically
unreactive in the
troposphere (the level of
air at the earth’s surface).
55-140
years
3,800
to 8,100
Were synthesized in 1928 for
use as refrigerants, aerosol
propellants, and cleaning
solvents. They destroy
stratospheric ozone.
Hydrofluorocarbons
A man-made greenhouse
gas. It was developed to
replace ozone-depleting
gases found in a variety of
appliances. Composed of
a group of greenhouse
gases containing carbon,
chlorine an at least one
hydrogen atom.
14 years
140 to
11,700
Powerful greenhouse gases
that are emitted from a variety
of industrial processes.
Fluorinated gases are
sometimes used as substitutes
for stratospheric ozonedepleting substances. These
gases are typically emitted in
smaller quantities, but because
they are potent greenhouse
gases.
Nitrous oxide
(N2O)
Commonly known as
laughing gas, is a
chemical compound with
the formula N2O. It is an
oxide of nitrogen. At room
temperature, it is a
colorless, non-flammable
gas, with a slightly sweet
odor and taste. It is used
in surgery and dentistry
for its anesthetic and
analgesic effects.
120 years 310
Emitted during agricultural and
industrial activities, as well as
during combustion of fossil
fuels and solid waste.
Prefluorocarbons
Has a stable molecular
structure and only breaks
down by ultraviolet rays
about 60 kilometers
above Earth’s surface.
50,000
years
6,500
to
9,200
Two main sources of prefluorocarbons are primary
aluminum production and
semiconductor manufacturing.
3-112
Table 3-10: Greenhouse Gases; Source: EPA, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Greenhouse
Gas
Description and Physical
Properties Lifetime GWP Sources
Sulfur
hexafluoride
An inorganic, odorless,
colorless, and nontoxic
nonflammable gas.
3,200
years
23,900
This gas is manmade and used
for insulation in electric power
transmission equipment, in the
magnesium industry, in
semiconductor manufacturing
and as a tracer gas.
Each of the designated gases described above can reside in the atmosphere for different amounts of time, ranging from a few years to thousands of years. All of these gases remain in the atmosphere long enough to become well mixed, meaning that the amount that is measured in the atmosphere is roughly the same all over the world regardless of the source of the emission.
Potential Climate Change Impacts for California
Observed changes over the last several decades across the western United States reveal clear signs of climate change. Statewide, average temperatures increased by about 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) from 1895 to 2011, and warming has been greatest in the Sierra Nevada. The years from 2014 through 2016 showed unprecedented temperatures, with 2014 being the warmest. By 2050, California is projected to warm by approximately 2.7°F above 2000 averages, a threefold increase in the rate of warming over the last century. By 2100, average temperatures could increase by 4.1°F to 8.6°F, depending on emissions levels.
Overall, California has become drier over time, with five of the eight years of severe to extreme drought occurring between 2007 and 2016, and with unprecedented dry years in 2014 and 2015.
Statewide precipitation has become increasingly variable from year to year, with the driest consecutive four years occurring from 2012 to 2015.
Global climate change risks to California include impacts to public health, water resources, agriculture, coastal sea level, forest and biological resources, and energy.
California’s GHG Sources and Relative Contribution
As noted in the General Plan EIR, in 2021, the statewide GHG emissions inventory was updated for 2000 to 2019 emissions using the GWPs in IPCC’s AR4. 17 Based on these GWPs, California produced 418.2 MMTCO2e GHG emissions in 2019. California’s transportation sector was the single-largest generator of GHG emissions, producing 39.7 percent of the state’s total emissions. Industrial sector emissions made up 21.1 percent, and electric power generation made up 14.1 percent of the state’s emissions inventory. Other major sectors of GHG emissions 3-113
include commercial and residential (10.5 percent), agriculture and forestry (7.6 percent), high GWP (4.9 percent), and recycling and waste (2.1 percent).
Transportation emissions continued to decline in 2019 statewide as they had done in 2018, with even more substantial reductions due to a significant increase in renewable diesel. Since 2008, California’s electricity sector has followed an overall downward trend in emissions. In 2019, solar power generation continued its rapid growth since 2013. Emissions from high-GWP gases made up 4.9 percent of California’s emissions in 2019.
Tule River Reservation Emissions
The existing land uses where the Project will occur is The Village area of Tule River Reservation which generally consists of residences, retail, office, commercial, and institutional (i.e., Tribal Governance) uses. Operation of these land uses generates typical GHG emissions from natural gas used for energy, heating, and cooking; electricity usage; vehicle trips for employees and residents; area sources such as landscaping and agricultural equipment and consumer cleaning products; water demand; waste generation; and solid waste generation.
Regulatory Setting
Climate changes is a global, national, state, and local issue involving greenhouse gas emissions from all around the world; therefore, countries around the world, including the United States, have established regulations to assist in the emissions of GHGs. The following are a brief description of international, national, state, and local regulations.
International
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1998)
The United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to assess the scientific, technical and socioeconomical information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of humaninduced climate change and its potential impacts.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1994) Governments gather and share information on GHG emissions, national polices and best practices; launch national strategies for addressing GHG emissions and adapting to expected impacts.
Kyoto Protocol (Adopted 1997, effective 2005)
3-114
Sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community for reducing GHG emissions at an average of 5% against 1990 levels over the five-year period of 2008-2012 Paris Climate Agreement (adopted 2015, effective 2016)
The Paris Climate Agreement is an agreement within the United UNFCCC to limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. Under the agreement, each country determines, plans, and regularly reports its own contribution to mitigate global warming. The agreement is voluntary and is not legally binding. Its is noted that the United States withdrew from this agreement in January 2025.
Federal
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) announced on December 7, 2009, that GHG emissions threaten the public health and welfare of the American people and that GHG emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat.
To regulate GHGs from passenger vehicles, the USEPA was required to issue an endangerment finding. GHGs—CO2, CH4, N2O are applicable to the Project’s GHG emissions inventory because they constitute the majority of GHG emissions and, according to guidance by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), are the GHG emissions that should be evaluated as part of a project’s GHG emissions inventory. ▪ U.S. Mandatory Report Rule for Greenhouse Gases (2009) ▪ Update to Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (2021 to 2026) ▪ USEPA Regulation of Stationary Sources under the Clean Air Act (Ongoing) State
As indicated in the General Plan EIR, Current State of California guidance and goals for reductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in Executive Order (EO) S-03-05, EO B30-15, EO B-55-18, Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), SB 32, and SB 375. ▪ Executive Order S-03-05. EO S-03-05, signed June 1, 2005, set the following GHGreduction targets for the state:
• 2000 levels by 2010.
• 1990 levels by 2020.
• 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
▪ Assembly Bill 32. AB 32 was passed by the California state legislature on August 31, 2006, to place the state on a course toward reducing its contribution of GHG emissions. AB 32 follows the 2020 tier of emissions reduction targets established in EO S 03 05. CARB 3-115
prepared the 2008 Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) to outline a plan to achieve the GHG-emissions reduction targets of AB 32.
▪ Executive Order B-30-15. EO B-30-15, signed April 29, 2015, set a goal of reducing GHG emissions in the state to 40 percent of 1990 levels by year 2030. EO B-30-15 also directed CARB to update the Scoping Plan to quantify the 2030 GHG reduction goal for the state and requires state agencies to implement measures to meet the interim 2030 goal as well as the long-term goal for 2050 in EO S-03- 05. It also requires the Natural Resources Agency to conduct triennial updates of the California adaption strategy, Safeguarding California, to ensure climate change is accounted for in state planning and investment decisions.
▪ Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197. In September 2016, SB 32 and AB 197 were signed into law, making the EO goal for year 2030 into a statewide mandated legislative target.
AB 197 established a joint legislative committee on climate change policies and requires CARB to prioritize direct emissions reductions rather than the market-based cap-andtrade program for large stationary, mobile, and other sources. ▪ 2017 Scoping Plan Update. EO B-30-15 and SB 32 required CARB to prepare another update to the Scoping Plan to address the 2030 target for the state. On December 24, 2017, CARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan Update, which outlined potential regulations and programs, including strategies consistent with AB 197 requirements, to achieve the 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan established a new emissions limit of 260 MMTCO2e for the year 2030, which corresponds to a 40 percent decrease in 1990 levels by 2030.
In addition to the statewide strategies listed here, the 2017 Scoping Plan also identified local governments as essential partners in achieving the State’s long-term GHG reduction goals and identified local actions to reduce GHG emissions. The statewide per-capita goals were developed by applying the percentage reductions necessary to reach the 2030 and 2050 climate goals (i.e., 40 and 80 percent, respectively) to the State’s 1990 emissions limit established under AB 32.
For California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) projects, CARB states that lead agencies have the discretion to develop evidenced-based numeric thresholds (mass emissions, per capita, or per service population)—consistent with the Scoping Plan and the state’s long-term GHG goals.
The 2017 Scoping Plan scenario is set against what is called the business-as-usual yardstick— that is, what would the GHG emissions look like if the State did nothing at all beyond the existing policies that are required and already in place to achieve the 2020 limit, as shown in Table 4.8- 3, 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Emissions Reductions Gap. Table 4.8-4, provides estimated GHG emissions by sector, compared to 1990 levels, and the range of GHG emissions for each sector estimated for 2030
3-116
Executive Order B-55-18. EO B-55-18, signed September 10, 2018, sets a goal “to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter.” EO B-55-18 directs CARB to work with relevant state agencies to ensure future Scoping Plans identify and recommend measures to achieve the carbon neutrality goal.
The 2022 Scoping Plan is currently being updated by CARB to address the GHG-reduction goals of EO B-55-18 by 2045. The 2022 Scoping Plan update will consider carbon stock and sequestration and carbon dioxide removal. Based on the preliminary modeling results identified in CARB’s April 20, 2022, workshop, the measures in the Scoping Plan will achieve 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The Draft 2022 Scoping Plan was released May 10, 2022, and final adoption is anticipated in late fall 2022.
Senate Bill 375. In 2008, SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, was adopted to connect the GHG emissions-reductions targets established in the 2008 Scoping Plan for the transportation sector to local land use decisions that affect travel behavior. The Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) is the MPO for the Tulare region, including the Tule River Reservation. Pursuant to the recommendations of the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee (RTAC), CARB adopted per-capita reduction targets for each of the MPOs rather than a total magnitude reduction target.
2017 Update to the SB 375 Targets. CARB is required to update the targets for the MPOs every eight years. In June 2017, CARB released updated targets and technical methodology and recently released another update in February 2018, which became effective in October 2018.
Regional
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District is made up of eight counties in California’s Central Valley: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare, and Kern. The Valley Air District is governed by a Governing Board consisting of representatives from the Board of Supervisors of all eight counties, one Health and Science member, one Physician, and five Valley city representatives.
SJVAPCD CEQA Greenhouse Gas Guidance. The SJVAPCD approach is intended to streamline the process of determining if Project specific GHG emissions would have a significant effect.
Best Performance Standards would be established according to performance-based determinations
San Joaquin Valley Carbon Exchange. Intended to quantify, verify, and track voluntary GHG emissions reductions generated within the San Joaquin Valley 3-117
Rule 2301. Emission Reduction Credit Banking. Provided an administrative mechanism for sources to bank GHG emissions, mechanism for sources to transfer GHG reductions to other users and defines eligibility standards, quantitative and procedures.
Tulare County Association of Governments (MCAG)
2022 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) The 2022 RTP/SCS noted that the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375) requires that California’s 18 MPOs, including TCAG, incorporate an integrated Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as part of the RTP/SCS. Related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, SB 375 also requires that SCS’s must be able to achieve the GHG reduction targets established by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). With the implementation of this Plan, the Tulare region can meet and exceed the greenhouse gas (GHG) targets provided under SB 375. It is noted that TCAG is in the process of preparing its draft 2026 RTP/SCS.
Local
None that apply to the Project.
3.4 Thresholds and Methodology
The impact analysis provided in Chapter 2.6 is based on the application of the following California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G, which indicates that a project would have a significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions if it would:
1. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
2. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gas emissions.
GHG emissions and climate change were evaluated in accordance with Appendix G of the 2024 CEQA Guidelines. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 states that, when making a determination with respect to the significance of a project’s GHG emissions, a lead agency shall have discretion to determine whether to: (1) Use a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project, and which model or methodology to use; and/or (2) Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance-based standards. Section 15064.4 also states that a lead agency should consider the following factors when assessing the significance of the impact of GHG emissions on the environment: (1) The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting; (2) Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead 3-118
agency determines applies to the project; and (3) The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions.
GHG emissions were calculated in the same CalEEMod model used to determine the proposed project’s criteria air pollutant emissions. Consistent with SJVAPCD recommendations, construction emissions were amortized over a thirty-year period and added to the annual operational emissions to determine the proposed Project’s annual GHG emissions. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), project significance was determined based on the proposed Project’s consistency with an approved plan or mitigation program that provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area of the proposed Project. CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan applies to the proposed Project and are intended to reduce GHG emissions to meet the statewide targets set in Senate Bill (SB) 32. The project efficiency threshold of 6.7 MT CO2e.yr/capita was derived from the CARB Scoping Plan and used to determine the Project’s potential impact on greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, the proposed Project would not have a significant effect on the environment if it were found to be consistent with CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan efficiency metric. a) Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
No Impact: As noted in the HRA Report (page 15), “Construction GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod, as described in Section 5 Methodology [of the HRA Report]. Operational GHG emissions would consist of minor lighting electricity use and occasional maintenance trips, resulting in negligible operational GHG emission levels. Combined construction and operational GHG emissions are presented in Table 4 [of the HRA Report].” “GHG emissions are provided for informational purposes only. The Project would not generate substantial long-term GHG emissions. No CEQA significance determination is provided within this HRA for GHG emissions.” (HRA Report, page 16). As discussed in the Criteria Pollutants section above [see Item III Air Quality b)], emissions are expected to be even lower with implementation of all State, regional, and local measures.” Construction. Greenhouse gases would be generated during construction-related activities such as site preparation, grading, building construction, application of architectural coatings, and paving. The CalEEMod Emissions report included in Table 2.2.1 in Appendix A of the HRA Report calculates that this Project will create unmitigated maximums of 2,577.67 MT of CO2e emissions during summer months; 1,807.14 MT of CO2e emissions during winter months; 802.504 MT of CO2e emissions on a daily average; and 132.864 MT of CO2e emissions annually. Because Project construction would generate less GHG emissions than this threshold, impacts related to GHG emissions during Project construction would be less than significant.
3-119
Operation. As shown in Table 2.3 Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds contained in Appendix A of the HRA Report, the proposed Project would not result in any operational greenhouse gas emissions. Operational emissions are projected to remain below established thresholds as there would be no increases to vehicular traffic/trips as the Project is pedestrian oriented.
The SJVAPCD has not formally provided guidance on how to analyze GHG emissions impacts for projects within their San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). Until such time as SJVAPCD provides formal guidance, the following alternative metrics used by air districts in California to assess GHG emissions impacts have been identified:
Also as noted in Table 2.3 Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds contained in Appendix A of the HRA Report, there would be no total operational GHG per year. As noted earlier, the Project is pedestrian oriented. As such, the proposed Project would not obstruct implementation of the CARB Scoping Plan and would not conflict with the land use concept plan in TCAG’s 2022 RTP/SCS. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, and in the HRA report (see Appendix A) prepared by qualified consultants Core Environmental Consulting, there would be no impact from the Project’s operational GHG emissions.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
b) Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? No Impact:. Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include CARB’s Scoping Plan and the 2022 TCAG RTP/SCS. A consistency analysis with these plans is presented herein.
The CARB Scoping Plan is applicable to state agencies but is not directly applicable to cities/counties and individual projects (i.e., the Scoping Plan does not require local jurisdictions to adopt its policies, programs, or regulations to reduce GHG emissions).
However, new regulations adopted by the State agencies from the Scoping Plan result in GHG emissions reductions at the local level. Future development projects would be required to comply with state GHG emissions reduction measures because they are statewide strategies. The proposed project would not obstruct implementation of the CARB Scoping Plan, and the would be no impact.
Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy SB 375 requires each MPO to prepare an SCS in its RTP. TCAG updated and adopted an SCS in its RTP on August 15, 2022 Resolution No. (2022-141). “The SB 375 per capita GHG reduction targets for SCSs set by CARB are considered an important benchmark for progress in reducing GHG from travel activity. In setting the per capita GHG reduction targets from auto and light truck emissions 3-120
by 2020 (13% for TCAG) and 2035 (16% for TCAG) from 2005 levels, CARB balances the reduction contribution needed from this component of the Scoping Plan with the ability of the regions to reasonably demonstrate reductions through their SCSs, which are an integral part of fiscally constrained Regional Transportation Plans.” (Chapter C SCS, page C-3 https://tc-web.acquiadam.com/assets/share/asset/54bjfv72iv). “It is important to note that a significantly lower population projection for the year 2040 may make it more difficult to achieve GHG reduction targets and harder to implement higher density and mass transportation solutions. Notwithstanding, the 2022 RTP/SCS represents an enhanced effort in GHG per capita reductions as compared to the previous RTP/SCSs, considering updated demographics assumptions. The 2022 RTP/SCS includes higher density with an emphasis on transit-oriented development near Cross-Valley Corridor stations and implementation of the Phase I express bus service all the corridor providing a commute alternative for SR 99, SR 198, SR 65, and SR 63.“ (SCS, page C-14).
The nature of the Project, summarized as pedestrian enhancements and two pedestrian bridges, would be consistent with all applicable State plans, policies, and regulations. Based on the analysis and information provided herein, the Project would not generate a cumulatively considerable GHG impact, nor would it conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, based on the information and analysis contained herein, and in the HRA report (see Appendix A) prepared by qualified consultants Core Environmental Consulting, there would be no impact to this resource.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Based on the analysis and information provided herein, and in the HRA report (see Appendix A) prepared by qualified consultants Core Environmental Consulting, no mitigation measures are required.
Cumulative Impact: Less than Significant.
As noted in the General Plan EIR, Project-related GHG emissions are not confined to a particular air basin but are dispersed worldwide. Therefore, impacts under impact discussion Item VIII a) are not project-specific impacts to global warming, but are the proposed Project’s contribution to this cumulative impact. As described under impact discussion Item VIII a) , implementation of the proposed Project would only result in an increase in GHG emissions during the Project’s construction-related activities. Therefore, overall regional planning area emissions (including this Project’s-related GHG emissions and their contribution to global climate change), would not be cumulatively considerable, and GHG emissions impacts would be less than significant, the same as Impact note at Item VIII a). As this Project does not cover a broad-based area, and its emissions will include short-term, temporary, and intermittent, construction-related 3-121
activity emissions which will end upon cessation of construction-related activities. Operational emissions are projected to remain below established thresholds as there would be no increases to vehicular traffic/trips as the Project is pedestrian oriented. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, and although not significant in and of itself, the overall Project impact would result in a less than significant cumulative impact. 3-122
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a Site which is included on
a list of hazardous materials Sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard or excessive noise to the
public or the environment?
e) For a Project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the Project result
in a safety hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in the Project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly
or indirectly, to significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
Environmental Setting
Hazardous Materials Sites
3-123
The Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC’s) EnviroStor was used to identify any sites associated with the release of hazardous materials or wastes within the Project area. A search of EnviroStor confirmed that neither the Project Site nor the Tule River Reservation is within or near a hazardous area or site. (See: https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0332328,- 118.8449611,13z?hl=en-US&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYxNy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D).
California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the CalEPA to compile, maintain, and update specified lists of hazardous material release sites. CEQA Section 21092.6 requires the lead agency to consult the lists compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 to determine whether the project and any alternatives are identified on any of the following lists:
▪ USEPA National Priorities List. The USEPA’s National Priorities List includes all sites under the USEPA’s Superfund program, which was established to fund cleanup of contaminated sites that pose risks to human health and the environment. ▪ USEPA CERCLIS and Archived Sites. The USEPA’s Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) includes a list of 15,000 sites nationally identified as hazardous sites. This would also involve a review for archived sites that have been removed from CERCLIS due to No Further Remedial Action Planned status.
▪ USEPA RCRIS (RCRA Info). The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information System (RCRIS or RCRA Info) is a national inventory system about hazardous waste handlers. Generators, transporters, handlers, and disposers of hazardous waste are required to provide information for this database.
▪ DTSC Cortese List. The DTSC maintains the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) list as a planning document for use by the State and local agencies to comply with the CEQA requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. This list includes the Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program Database.
▪ DTSC HazNet. The DTSC uses this database to track hazardous waste shipments. ▪ SWRCB LUSTIS. Through the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information System (LUSTIS), the SWRCB maintains an inventory of Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) and LUSTs, which tracks unauthorized releases.
Schools
As some land uses are considered more sensitive to airborne hazardous materials than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Because sensitive population groups include children, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires an evaluation of hazardous emissions or handling hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school, private or public. The nearest school to the Project area is Towanits K-5 Elementary School. As noted earlier, the Envirostor search indicated that neither the Project Site nor the Tule River Reservation is within or near a hazardous area or 3-124
site. As such, regardless of any nearby school, there are no hazardous sites within or near the Project area.
Airport Hazards
The nearest public airport is Porterville Municipal Airport; approximately 14 miles west of the Project site. Due to this distance, the Project not located within an airport land use plan.
Regulatory Setting
Federal
United States Environmental Protection Agency
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is the primary federal agency that regulates hazardous materials and waste. In general, the USEPA works to develop and enforce regulations that implement environmental laws enacted by Congress. The agency is responsible for researching and setting national standards for a variety of environmental programs, delegating the responsibility for issuing permits, and monitoring and enforcing compliance to states and Native American tribes. USEPA programs promote handling hazardous wastes safely, cleaning up contaminated land, and reducing waste volumes through such strategies as recycling. California falls under the jurisdiction of USEPA Region 9.
Under the authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and in cooperation with State and tribal partners, the USEPA Region 9 Waste Management and Superfund Divisions manage programs for site environmental assessment and cleanup, hazardous and solid waste management, and underground storage tanks.
United States Department of Transportation
The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) has the regulatory responsibility for the safe transportation of hazardous materials between states and internationally. The USDOT regulations govern all means of transportation, except for those packages shipped by mail, which are covered by United States Postal Service regulations. The federal RCRA of 1976 (described subsequently) imposes additional standards for the transport of hazardous wastes.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires specific training for hazardous materials handlers, provision of information to employees who may be exposed to hazardous materials, and acquisition of material safety data sheets from materials manufacturers. The material safety data sheets describe the risks, as well as proper handling 3-125
and procedures, related to specific hazardous materials. Employee training must include response and remediation procedures for hazardous materials releases and exposures.
State
California Environmental Protection Agency
One of the primary State agencies that regulate hazardous materials is CalEPA. CalEPA is authorized by the USEPA to enforce and implement certain federal hazardous materials laws and regulations. The California DTSC, a department of the CalEPA, protects California and its residents from exposure to hazardous waste, primarily under the authority of the RCRA and the California Health and Safety Code. The DTSC requirements include the need for written programs and response plans, such as Hazardous Materials Business Plans. The DTSC programs include dealing with aftermath clean-ups of improper hazardous waste management, evaluation of samples taken from sites, enforcement of regulations regarding use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials, and encouragement of pollution prevention.
California Division of Occupational Safety and Health
Like OSHA at the federal level, the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) is the responsible State-level agency for ensuring workplace safety. Cal/OSHA assumes primary responsibility for the adoption and enforcement of standards regarding workplace safety and safety practices. In the event that a work site is contaminated, a Site Safety Plan must be crafted and implemented to protect the safety of workers. Site Safety Plans establish policies, practices, and procedures to prevent the exposure of workers and members of the public to hazardous materials originating from the contaminated site or building.
California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES)
Cal OES was established as part of the Governor’s Office on January 1, 2009. It was created pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 38, which merged the duties, powers, purposes, and responsibilities of the former Governor’s Emergency Management Agency with those of the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security. Cal OES is responsible for the coordination of overall State agency response to major disasters in support of local government. The agency is responsible for ensuring the State’s readiness to respond to and recover from all hazards— natural, humanmade, emergencies, and disasters—and for assisting local governments in their emergency preparedness, response, recovery, and hazard mitigation efforts.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and California Highway Patrol (CHP) Caltrans and the CHP are the two State agencies that have primary responsibility for enforcing federal and State regulations and responding to hazardous materials transportation 3-126
emergencies. Caltrans is also the first responder for hazardous material spills and releases that occur on highways, freeways, and intercity rail lines. The CHP enforces hazardous materials and hazardous waste labeling and packing regulations designed to prevent leakage and spills of materials in transit and to provide detailed information to cleanup crews in the event of an accident.
California Building Code
The State of California provided a minimum standard for building design through the California Building Code (CBC), which is found in Title 24, Part 2 of the California Code of Regulations. The CBC is updated every three years. It is generally adopted on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis and may be subject to further modification based on local conditions. Commercial and residential buildings are plan-checked by local city and county building officials for compliance with the typical fire safety requirements of the CBC, including the installation of sprinklers in all high-rise buildings and the establishment of fire-resistance standards for fire doors and building materials. Section 414 of the CBC includes requirements for buildings and structures occupied for the manufacturing, processing, dispensing, use, or storage of hazardous materials.
California Health and Safety Code
California Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.95 and California Code of Regulations Title 19, Section 2729 set out the minimum requirements for business emergency plans and chemical inventory reporting. These regulations require businesses to provide emergency response plans and procedures, training program information, and a hazardous material chemical inventory disclosing hazardous materials stored, used, or handled on-site. A business that uses hazardous materials or a mixture containing hazardous materials must establish and implement a business plan if the hazardous material is handled in certain quantities.
California Fire Code
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, also known as the California Building Standards Code, contains the California Fire Code (CFC), included as Part 9. Updated every three years, the CFC includes provisions and standards for emergency planning and preparedness, fire service features, fire protection systems, hazardous materials, fire flow requirements, and fire hydrant locations and distribution. Similar to the CBC, the CFC is generally adopted on a jurisdictionby-jurisdiction basis, subject to further modification based on local conditions.
Regional
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
3-127
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act established the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and divided the state into nine regional basins, each under the jurisdiction of a Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Central Valley Region (Region 5) is the RWQCB that regulates water quality in the Project Area. The Central Valley RWQCB has the authority to require groundwater investigations when the quality of groundwater or surface waters of the state is threatened, and to require remediation actions, if necessary.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD or Air District) has primary responsibility for control of air pollution from sources other than motor vehicles and consumer products (which are the responsibility of CalEPA and California Air Resources Board [CARB]).
The SJVAPCD is responsible for preparing attainment plans for non-attainment criteria pollutants, control of stationary air pollutant sources, and the issuance of permits for activities including demolition and renovation activities affecting asbestos-containing materials (District Regulation VII, Rule 7050).
Local
The Tule River Tribe would address hazards and hazardous materials issues as they occur.
Discussion
a) Wouldthe Project createasignificanthazardto thepublic or the environment throughthe routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact: Project construction-related activities may involve the use and transport of hazardous materials. The use of such materials would be short-term, temporary, and intermittent and would cease when construction-related activities are completed. As the nature of the Project is pedestrian enhancements/improvements and safety oriented, daily operations would not result in the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Based on the analysis and information provided herein, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
b) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact: As noted earlier, the Project site currently contains Tribal governance and residential uses, the South Fork of the Tule River, and natural vegetation. 3-128
The most recent Envirostor query does not show any record of hazardous materials. Other than the areas where the Project’s pedestrian enhancements/improvements would occur, it is unlikely that the Project’s construction-related activities would pose a reasonably foreseeable condition or incident that could result in significant release of hazardous materials into the environment. During construction-related activities, potential accidental releases of standard fuels, solvents, or chemicals typical of construction of this type of project may occur. Should an accidental hazardous release occur, existing regulations for handling hazardous materials may require coordination with the Tule River Fire Department (or DTSC) for an appropriate plan of action, which can include studies or testing to determine the nature and extent of contamination, as well as handling and proper disposal.
Given the nature of the Project as pedestrian enhancements/improvements to provide safe walking and cycling within the existing land use environment, the operation of the Project does not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
c) Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No Impact: Project operations will not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or wastes. The existing Towanits K-5 Elementary School will be one of the facilities that would directly benefit from the pedestrian improvements (e.g., via sidewalks, a trail, and crosswalks proposed by the Project). Since the Project would not emit hazardous emissions or involve handling acutely hazardous. Compliance with applicable federal, state, and local rules/regulations would also ensure that the Project would not expose the nearest school to hazardous risks. Based on the analysis and information provided herein, there would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
d) Would the Project be located on a Site which is included on a list of hazardous materials Sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? NoImpact: The Project Siteis not listed as a hazardous materials siteunder Government Code Section 65962.5, nor is the Project Site identified in DTSC’s EnviroStor or SWRCB’s GeoTracker hazardous databases. Based on the analysis and information provided herein, there would be no impact.
3-129
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
e) For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area? No Impact: The proposed Project is located approximately 14 miles east of Porterville Municipal Airport and is not located within an airport land use plan area. Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area. Based on the analysis and information provided herein, there would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
f) Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact: The Project would not impair or interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. During construction-related activities and depending upon work activity location, it is possible that temporary disruption could occur along roadways (North and South Reservation Roads). However, a traffic control plan would be implemented to ensure safe passage in the unlikely occurrence of an emergency event.
Also, the Project would result in short-term, temporary, and intermittent physical disruptions.
For example, construction-related activity directly adjacent to roadways could result in disruptions; however, work on the pedestrian bridges would not. In addition, the Tule River Fire Department would be available to assist in procedures to ensure consistency with emergency response and evacuation needs. Based on the analysis and information provided herein, there would be a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
g)Would the Project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Less than Significant Impact: The Project Site is located in the Federal Responsibility Area thus it is not classified by Cal Fire meaning the financial responsibility of preventing and suppressing wildfires is primarily the responsibility of a federal agency (see Fire Hazard Severity Zones map at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfirepreparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones). The Division of Forestry and Wildland Fire Management (DFWFM) oversees the National Indian Forestry and Wildland Fire Management Program which is an effort between the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and other federal agencies and tribal governments. The Tule River 3-130
Tribe and Reservation is a federally recognized tribe of Native Americans located on the eastern side of Tulare County. The Tule River Fire Department supports fire protection services within the Reservation. The Tule River Fire Department would likely be the first responder to any fire event in the Tule River Reservation; however, if a wildland fire were to occur, federal resources would be utilized. As the nature of the Project is pedestrian enhancements/improvements to provide a safe walking environment, the Project in and of itself would not expose people or structures to significant risks from wildland fires. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, no impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Based on the analysis and information provided herein, no mitigation measures are required.
Cumulative Impact: Potentially Significant.
The cumulative area is limited to the Tule River Reservation. As discussed previously, the nature of the Project (summarized as pedestrian safety enhancements and pedestrian bridges) would not result in a significant impact from the increased use of hazardous household materials. The Project would not interfere with implementation of emergency response plans.
In addition, potential project-level impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials would be further reduced through compliance with state and federal regulations. Since impacts associated with hazardous materials, are, by their nature, focused on specific sites or areas, the less-than-significant impacts from the Project would not contribute to a cumulative increase in hazards in the immediate vicinity outside of the Tule River Reservation or throughout the region. Therefore, the potential for cumulative impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. 3-131
X.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise sustainably
degrade surface or ground water quality?
b) Substantiallydecrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the Project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the Site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner, which
would:
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation onor off-site? (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite?
(iii) create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones risk
the release of pollutants due to Project inundation? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater movement plan?
Environmental Setting
Regional Hydrology:
The Tule Reservation Area does not lie within any watershed. The South Fork of the Tule River meanders to and drains into Success Lake. Prior to construction of Shafer Dam, the South Fork of the Tule River naturally drained into the Tule River. 3-132
Local Hydrology
The Project lies within the South Fork of the Tule River drainage basin. The topography of the Project Area gently slopes toward the northeast. Stormwater runoff within the Project Area is largely naturally conveyed toward the River with natural percolation absorbing (that is draining) the majority of runoff prior to reaching the river. The impervious surfaces of the local roadway network allows stormwater to drain toward the edges of the roadways where natural percolation and evaporation would occur.
Groundwater
Due to the natural soils and relatively shallow depth of soils over granitic rock, groundwater is limited to fissures in the bedrock. Because of these features, most stormwater within the Project area would percolate to the subsurface impervious bedrock and subsequently flow toward and seep (drain) into the nearby river.
Climate
The area experiences a semiarid, Mediterranean climate, which consists of hot, dry summers with low humidity and very mild winters. The area receives about 9.1 inches of rain annually, which is primarily recorded during the five-month stretch between December and March.14 The winter average low temperature is about 38 degrees Fahrenheit, and the average summer high temperature is about 95 degrees Fahrenheit.
Water Quality
Surface water quality is affected by point-source and nonpoint-source pollutants. Point source pollutants are emitted at a specific point, such as a pipe, and nonpoint-source pollutants are typically generated by surface runoff from diffuse sources, such as streets, paved areas, and landscaped areas. Point-source pollutants are controlled with pollutant discharge regulations or water discharge requirements. Nonpoint source pollutants are more difficult to monitor and control, although they are important contributors to surface water quality in urban areas.
Generally, stormwater runoff pollutants vary based on land use, topography, the amount of impervious surface, the amount and frequency of rainfall, and irrigation practices. Runoff in developed areas typically contains oil, grease, and metals accumulated in streets, driveways, parking lots, and rooftops, as well as pesticides, herbicides, particulate matter, nutrients, animal waste, and other oxygen-demanding substances from landscaped areas. The highest pollutant concentrations usually occur at the beginning of the wet season during the “first flush,” when early rainfall flushes out pollutants that have accumulated on hardscape surfaces during the preceding dry months.
3-133
Flood Zones
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) identifies floodplain zones to assist cities with mitigating flooding hazards through land use planning. FEMA also outlines specific regulations for any construction within a 100-year floodplain. The 100-year floodplain is defined as an area that has a one percent chance of being inundated during a 12-month period.
Although FEMA does not provide information within the Project area, the FIRM map immediately west/northwest of the Tule River Indian Reservation FIRM map shows Flood Zone A within the bounds of the Tule River. This is likely due to the topography of the area which generally slopes toward the river thereby confining potential floodwater within the river’s existing channel (see Tule River Indian Reservation, 065066; 06107C1695E6 6/16/2009 as: https://hazardsfema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b552 9aa9cd&extent=-120.22581757761441,36.77078148069618,-
119.60509003855205,37.04530192606378).
It is noted; however, that exceptional atmospheric storm events during periods of 2022 and 2023 resulted in substantial flows of the Tule River resulting in local flooding along Village area and resulted in significant damage to the existing pedestrian bridge rendering it unusable.
Hence, the need to replace the pedestrian bridge.
Figure 3-2 Flood Zones
3-134
Dam Inundation
The Project Area is not within the inundation zones in the unlikely event of catastrophic failure of Schafer Dam; therefore, it is not within a Dam Inundation Zone. As noted earlier, the South Fork of the Tule River would naturally drain into the Tule River prior to the construction of Schafer Dam and the subsequent formation of Lake Success.
Tsunami
A tsunami is a series of traveling ocean waves generated by a rare, catastrophic event, including earthquakes, submarine landslides, and submarine or shoreline volcanic eruptions.
The Project Area is approximately 120 miles east of the Pacific Ocean, including the intervening Coastal Range that would serve as a physical barrier to tsunami waters. As such, a tsunami event does not represent a threat to the Project site.
Seiche
A seiche is an oscillation of a body of water in an enclosed or semi-enclosed basin such as a reservoir, harbor, lake, or storage tank. Seiches can be created by winds, earthquakes, or tsunamis. Bodies of water such as bays, harbors, lakes, reservoirs, or large aboveground storage tanks can experience seiches. There are no large bodies of water within the Project Area that could trigger a seiche.
Regulatory Setting
Federal
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is enforced by the U.S. EPA and was developed in 1972 to regulate discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States. The Act made it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters unless a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit is obtained.
National Flood Insurance Act
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is tasked with responding to, planning for, recovering from, and mitigating disasters. The Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration within FEMA is responsible for administering the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and administering programs that aid with mitigating future damages from natural hazards.
3-135
State
California Water Quality Porter-Cologne Act
California’s primary statute leading water quality and water pollution concerns with respect to both surface waters and groundwater is the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970 (Porter-Cologne Act). The Porter-Cologne Act grants the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) and each of the nine Regional Water Quality Boards (RWQCB) power to protect water quality and further develop the Clean Water Act within California. The applicable RWQCB for the proposed Project is the Central Valley RWQCB.
Central Valley RWQCB: The proposed Project is within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional RWQCB. The Central Valley RWQCB may require an NPDES Permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for projects disturbing more than one acre of total land area.
Because the Project is greater than one cumulative acre, an NPDES Permit and SWPPP will be required.
Discussion
a) Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: The nature of the Project (pedestrian safety enhancements and pedestrian bridges) would not substantially degrade surface or ground-water quality. Construction-related activities, which would be short-term, temporary, and intermittent, would likely involve excavation, grading, and other earthwork within the Project location. Depending upon the season construction-related activities occur, during storm events, exposed construction areas on the Project Site may cause runoff to carry pollutants such as chemicals, oils, sediment, and debris. Additionally, potential soil erosion and the size of the Project Site necessitates the implementation of a SWPPP for the Project. The SWPPP identifies all potential pollution sources that could affect stormwater discharges from the Project Site and specifies BMPs for stormwater runoff. Chemicals or surfactants used during Project maintenance or operations may also discharge into the environment, potentially affecting water quality standards.
Moreover, the Project would implement Mitigation Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2 which require steps to minimize impacts on water quality during construction. Mitigation Measure HYD-1, before any construction or grading begins, the Applicant must submit a NOI for discharge from the Project Site to the California SWRCB Storm Water Permit Unit. A copy of this NOI must also be submitted to the project proponent before the issuance of grading permits, with the project proponent reviewing the documentation and conducting site inspections during construction to ensure compliance. Mitigation Measure HYD-2 requires the building 3-136
contractor to prepare and submit a SWPPP to the project proponent for approval at least 45 days before construction starts. The contractor is responsible for understanding and adhering to the State General Permit and implementing the SWPPP, which outlines potential pollutant sources and specifies BMPs to control site discharges. These BMPs include dust control, monitoring for erosion and sedimentation control, use of detention basins and erosion control materials, covering soil stockpiles and graded slopes during inactivity or extreme weather, and strictly preventing spills and pollutant discharges through proper material storage, trash disposal, and site management. Further, it is noted that as the project would be funded through Caltrans, the Project must comply with Caltrans’ specifications, standards, requirements, etc., (collectively referred to as “requirements”). Caltrans’ requirements are not mitigation measures as they would be required regardless of magnitude of impacts. Simply stated, if Caltrans requires a specific practice to satisfy one of their requirements, it must be performed to their satisfaction.
Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures: See Mitigation Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2. b) Would the Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
No Impact: As noted previously, the nature of the Project (that is, pedestrian safety enhancements and pedestrian bridges) would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. As the Project would not result in any additional use of groundwater beyond the existing use.
Therefore, based on the analysis and information contained herein, the impact on water resources would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
c)Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the Site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner, which would: i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite; ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv) impede or redirect flood flows.
3-137
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed Project involves the construction of pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, and trails to enhance pedestrian safety within the Project location. During the short-term, temporary, and intermittent construction-related activities, an existing drainage pattern may be altered. However, by implementing the previously noted SWPPP, erosion control measures designed to prevent significant impacts related to erosion caused by runoff during construction-related activities would prevent substantial erosion or siltation on or off the Site.
Therefore, through regulatory compliance, and based on the analysis and information provided herein, the Project’s impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
Less Than Significant Impact: As noted previously, the nature of the Project can be summarized as pedestrian safety enhancements and pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, and paths that would not result in a substantial increase of impervious surfaces within the Project Site. As such, the Project would not result in a substantial increase in surface runoff.
Therefore, through regulatory compliance, and based on the analysis and information provided herein, the Project would have a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Less Than Significant Impact: As noted earlier, the nature of the Project (that is, pedestrian safety enhancements and pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, and paths), would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The previously noted SWPPP would ensure that polluted runoff during short-term, temporary and intermittent construction-related activities would not contribute to additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, including regulatory compliance as applicable, the project would result in a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
3-138
iv. Impede or redirect floodflows?
Less than Significant Impact: Although the Site is near the South Fork of the Tule River (river), it may temporarily alter the course of the river where the replacement and new pedestrian bridges would be located during the short-term, temporary and intermittent constructionrelated activities. Possible impediment or redirection of the river could occur depending upon the seasonal flow when construction-related activities occur. Also, the Project site is surrounded by existing development that would likely impede or direct flood flows away from the site. The nearest National Flood Hazard mapping by the Federal Emergency Management Agency does not include the Tule River Reservation area where the Project will be located. (Tule River Indian Reservation, 065066; 06107C1695E6 6/16/2009 at:
https://hazardsfema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5 529aa9cd&extent=-120.22581757761441,36.77078148069618,- 119.60509003855205,37.04530192606378). However, the adjacent flood map panel shows that flooding would be limited to the main channel of the South Fork of the Tule River; it is reasonable to infer that based on the similar topography (that is, elevation, slope, and channel) where the river flows that potential flooding would be confined within the river channel which is outside of the Project area. As noted earlier, the pedestrian bridges will cross the river and could, depending upon seasonal flow, temporarily impede or redirect flows which would be minimized or avoided using typical construction practices specific to pedestrian bridge construction. Other components of the Project would not impede or redirect flood flows.
Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, there would be a less than significant impact
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
d) Would the Project, in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk the release of pollutants due to Project inundation?
No Impact: The Project is located inland and not near an ocean or large body of water; and as such, neither a tsunami nor seiche would affect the Project site. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, no impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
e) Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
3-139
Less than Significant Impact: As noted earlier, the nature of the Project can be summarized as pedestrian safety enhancements and pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, and paths that would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of any water quality control plan. The Tribe’s groundwater supplies are drawn from existing groundwater sources and the South Fork of the Tule River which is then treated.
The Project would be subject to the requirements of the NPDES Stormwater Program and would be required to comply with a SWPPP. The SWPPP would identify all potential sources of pollution that could affect stormwater discharges from the Project Site and specify BMPs to prevent significant impacts related to stormwater runoff. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, and through regulatory compliance as applicable, the Project would result in a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Mitigation Measures: See HYD-1 and HYD-2
Mitigation Measure HYD-1: Prior to the issuance of any construction/grading permit and/or the commencement of any clearing, grading, or excavation, the Applicant shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) for discharge from the Project Site to the California State Water Resources Control Board’s Storm Water Permit Unit and submit a copy of this NOI to Tribal representatives, or designee. The Tribal representatives, or designee, shall review the noticing documentation prior to approval of the grading permit and Tribal representative, or designee, monitoring staff shall inspect the Project Site during construction for compliance.
Mitigation Measure HYD-2: The Applicant (Project proponent) shall require the building contractor to prepare and submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the Project proponent 45 days prior to the start of work for approval. The contractor is responsible for understanding the State General Permit and instituting the SWPPP during construction. A SWPPP for site construction shall be developed prior to the initiation of grading and implemented for all construction activity on the Project Site in excess of one (1) acre, or where the area of disturbance is less than one acre but is part of the Project’s plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres. The SWPPP shall identify potential pollutant sources that may affect the quality of discharges to stormwater and shall include specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control the discharge of material from the site. The following BMPs methods shall include, but would not be limited to:
• Dust control measures to ensure success of all on-site activities to control fugitive dust; • A routine monitoring plan to ensure success of all on-site erosion and sedimentation control measures;
• Provisional detention basins, straw bales, erosion control blankets, mulching, silt fencing, sand bagging, and soil stabilizers shall be used; • Soil stockpiles and graded slopes shall be covered after two weeks of inactivity and 24 hours prior to and during extreme weather conditions; and, 3-140
• BMPs shall be strictly followed to prevent spills and discharges of pollutants on-site, such as material storage, trash disposal, construction entrances, etc.
Cumulative Impact: Less Than Significant with Mitigation The geographic context used for the cumulative assessment of hydrology, drainage, flooding, and water quality is limited to the Tule River Reservation and the South Fork of the Tule River drainage basin. Also as noted earlier, the South Fork of the Tule River drains into Lake Success, therefore it does not directly drain into the Tule River watershed west of Schafer Dam. As previously noted, the nature of the Project (that is, pedestrian safety enhancements and pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, and paths), it is unlikely that these resources would be impacted beyond cessation of construction-related activities which will be short-term, temporary, and intermittent. Also, implementation of the earlier noted BMPs would reduce local and cumulative impacts to hydrology and drainage resulting in a less than significant impact. The water quality regulations implemented by the Central Valley RWQCB take a basin wide approach and consider water quality impairment in a regional context. Projects in these sub watersheds would implement structural and nonstructural source-control BMPs that reduce the potential for pollutants to enter runoff, and treatment control BMPs that remove pollutants from stormwater. Therefore, cumulative water quality impacts would be less than significant after compliance with these permit requirements, and impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
The Central Valley RWQCB regulates discharges from runoff or leaching of irrigation water and/or stormwater from irrigated lands through the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. Even though the Project areas does not include any irrigated lands, any stormwater control program and storm drain improvements implemented by the Tule River Tribe would not directly or adversely impact the surrounding area. As noted earlier, the Project is not located within a flood zone and would therefore not result in a cumulative flood hazard. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, cumulative impacts from the Project to hydrology, drainage, and flooding would be less than significant.
3-141
XI.LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy,
or regulation adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Environmental Setting
The Project is located entirely within the Tule River Reservation, generally along No. Reservation Road between Cow Mountain Road and Million Dollar Bridge. The Project is predominantly located in the Village area, which is the community and civic center of the Tule River Reservation and includes the Tribal Education Center, Gymnasium, Community Health Clinic, Tribal Council, Justice Center, Cow Mountain Daycare Center, Towanits Elementary School, and other Tribal service buildings. Residents access the Village area from the surrounding residences by walking, cycling, or vehicle use (See item 7. Project Description for additional details). In summary, the Project would result in two new pedestrian bridges (one to replace an the existing pedestrian swinging bridge and the other would be a new pedestrian bridge) to connect Cow Mountain Road and the No. Reservation Road corridor to the Justice Center, construct a new Class 1 trail, construct approximately 3,765 SF of concrete sidewalk construct seven (7) accessible curb ramps, install landscaping and irrigation for the length of the project, and other features as shown in Item 7. Project Description. The overall intent of the Project is to enhance pedestrian safety generally within the Village area and provide better pedestrian access to other Tribal uses south of the river.
Regulatory Setting
Federal
None that apply to the Project.
State
None that apply to the Project.
3-142
Local
Sustainable/Circulation Element for the Tule River Comprehensive Master Plan (STCETRCMP).
As noted in the STCETRCMP, “The Master Plan seeks to help consolidate the different developmental ideas and visions the Tribal has into one formal document. It is intended to formulate a concise methodology that allows for the community to reach toward a singular end goal that instills visual harmony on the Reservation. This document outlines the future steps and processes that go in to laying the foundation for the envisioned community outlined by the Tribal Council.
The Tule River Tribe’s Master Plan will include an overall plan and four specific plans. The overall plan will include the Reservation, the specific plan areas and approximately 400,000 acres of surrounding land that the Tribe has historical and cultural stewardship over. The Master Plan includes Federal areas managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the US Fish and Wildfire Service. The main components of the Master Plan include the Housing Plan, the Specific Plans, this Sustainable Transportation Plan, an Infrastructure Plan, the Implementation Plan and a Financing Plan. The Master Plan will also include detailed development proposals for the Village area of the Reservation. The specific plans are intended to include more detail on proposed development within properties owned by the Tribe outside the Reservation. The Village, Specific Plans, and Road Safety Plan.” (see STCETRCMP, page 31) Tule River Road Safety Plan
Also as noted in the Sustainable/Circulation Element for the Tule River Comprehensive Master Plan, “The Tule River Indian Reservation has seen a high number of accidents over the last years within the Reservation. The Tribe in an effort to understand and address this issue received a grant from Caltrans to prepare a road safety plan. The goal of the Plan is to reduce highway fatalities and serious injuries on the roads within the Reservation. The Plan focuses on several different emphasis areas such as speed limits, and the relationship between motor vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists. A safety plan is a coordinated plan that provides a comprehensive framework for reducing highway fatalities and serious injuries on Tribal roads and identifies a key safety needs and guides investment decisions towards strategies and countermeasures with the most potential to save lives and prevent injuries. The Federal Fixing American’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act calls for Tribes to develop, implement, evaluate and update a safety plan that identifies and analyzes highway safety problems and opportunities on all tribal roads.
The Tule River Tribe Road Safety Plan develops strategies to correct and improve hazardous road conditions at various locations on the Reservation. The Plan is a multi-year document that integrates the four E’s of highway safety- engineering, enforcement, education, and emergency medical services (EMS)…The goal for the Road Safety Plan is to increase traffic safety and significantly improve the quality of life for Tribal members and the general public.” (see STCETRCMP, page 35)
3-143
Discussion
a) Wouldthe Projectphysicallydividean establishedcommunity? No Impact: As noted earlier,the nature of the Project (that is, pedestrian safety enhancements and pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, and paths), would not physically divide an established community. This objective is consistent with the Road Safety Plan as noted earlier SCE. To reiterate, the goal for the Road Safety Plan is to increase traffic safety and significantly improve the quality of life for Tribal members and the general public. As such, the Project would complement the existing uses and would provide connectivity with adjacent Tribal governance uses, an elementary school, office/commercial uses, and other uses. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, no impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
b) WouldtheProjectcauseasignificantenvironmentalimpactduetoaconflictwithanyland use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
No Impact: As previously noted, the nature of the Project is pedestrian safety enhancements using pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, paths, signage, etc. As such, the Project would not conflict with land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Rather, the Project would fulfill the objectives of many active transportation plans (ATP) such as the Tule River Indian Reservation ATP plan (December 2022); California Transportation Plan 2050 (CTP 2021); 2018 Sustainable Transportation/Circulation Element (ST/CE) of Tule River Comprehensive Master Plan, Tule River Tribal Transportation Safety Assessment (T2SA 2016); Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) Regional Active Transportation Plan ((RATP) 2016, 2017, 2020); 2018 and 2022 Tulare County Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, the Project would have no impact.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Based on the analysis and information provided herein, no mitigation measures are required.
Cumulative Impact: No Impact
3-144
The geographic context for the cumulative land use and planning is limited to the Tule River Reservation area. The land use analysis determined that the proposed Project would not divide an established community or conflict with established plans, policies, and regulations, in or outside the Tule River Reservation, adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Project would not create substantial land use impacts. As previously noted, the nature of the Project is pedestrian safety enhancements using pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, paths, signage, etc. Also as previously noted, the Project would fulfill the objectives of many active transportation plans (ATP) such as the Tule River Indian Reservation ATP plan (December 2022); California Transportation Plan 2050 (CTP 2021); 2018 Sustainable Transportation/Circulation Element (ST/CE) of Tule River Comprehensive Master Plan, Tule River Tribal Transportation Safety Assessment (T2SA 2016); Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) Regional Active Transportation Plan ((RATP) 2016, 2017, 2020); 2018 and 2022 Tulare County Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). Therefore, the proposed Project would provide a benefit rather than result in an adverse contribution to cumulative impacts related to land use changes and would result in no cumulative impact.
3-145
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally –
important mineral resource recovery Site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other lands use plan?
Environmental Setting
The California Department of Conservation (DOC), Mining Division, indicates that there are no mineral resource zones within the Tule River Reservation area and there is no mineral extraction occurring on or adjacent to the proposed Project site. (see DOC’s website at:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?url=https://gis.conservation.ca.gov/ser ver/rest/services/MOL/MOLMines/MapServer&source=sd).
Regulatory Setting
Federal
None that apply to the Project.
State
None that Apply to the Project.
Local
None that Apply to the Project.
Discussion
a) Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 3-146
No Impact: The Project site has no known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the state’s residents. The Project site is not designated as an important mineral resource recovery site as determined by the DOC. Also, as previously noted, the nature of the Project can be summarized as pedestrian safety enhancements using pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, paths, signage, etc. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, the Project would not result in the loss or impede the mining of regionally or locally important mineral resources. There would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
b)Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally –important mineral resource recovery Site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other lands use plan? No Impact: As noted earlier at Item a) there are no known mineral resources that would be important to the region, and the Project site is not designated as an important mineral resource as determined by the DOC. As previously noted, the nature of the Project is pedestrian safety enhancements using pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, paths, signage, etc.
Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of known regionally or locally important mineral resources. There is no impact.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Based on the analysis and information provided herein, no mitigation measures are required.
Cumulative Impact: No Impact
As noted earlier, the DOC has determined that the Tule River Reservation area does not contain any important mineral resources or mining operations. As the City does not contain any known mineral resources, the General Plan does not include any Goals or policies applicable to mineral resources. As previously noted, the nature of the Project is pedestrian safety enhancements using pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, paths, signage, etc. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, the Project would not result in the loss or impede the mining of regionally or locally important mineral resources. There would be no cumulative impact.
3-147
XIII.NOISE
Wouldthe Project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the vicinity of the Project in excess of
standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive ground-borne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) For a Project located within the vicinity of
a private airstrip or, an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of public airport or public
use airport, would the Project expose people
residing or working in the Project area to
excessive noise levels?
Environmental Setting
The predominant existing noise sources in the vicinity of the Project Site are vehicles on adjacent streets. The Project site is greater than two (2) miles from the nearest airport (Porterville Municipal Airport) and is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan.
Noise is often described as an unwanted sound, while Sound is the variation in air pressure that the human ear can detect. If the pressure variations occur at least 20 times per second, they can be detected by the human ear. The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound. The frequency is expressed as cycles per second, called Hertz (Hz).
Ambient noise is the “background” noise of an environment. Existing ambient noise levels proximate to the Project site are primarily due to traffic. Construction activities usually result in an increase in sound above ambient noise levels.
Vibration is sound radiated through the ground. Vibration can result from a source (e.g., train operations, motor vehicles, machinery equipment, etc.), causing the adjacent ground to move, 3-148
creating vibration waves that propagate through the soil to the foundations of nearby buildings. This effect is a ground-borne vibration.
TERMINOLOGY
To understand noise, it is important to understand how noise is evaluated by providing the following terminology. The following are brief definitions of terminology used in this section:
▪ Sound. A disturbance created by a vibrating object, which when transmitted by pressure waves through a medium such as air, is capable of being detected by the human ear or a microphone.
▪ Noise. Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable. ▪ Decibel (dB). A measure of sound on a logarithmic scale. ▪ A-Weighted Decibel (dBA). An overall frequency-weighted sound level in decibels that approximates the frequency response of the human ear.
▪ Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (Leq). The mean of the noise level, energy averaged over the measurement period.
▪ Lmax. The maximum noise level during a measurement period. ▪ Statistical Sound Level (Ln). The sound level that is exceeded “n” percent of time during a given sample period. For example, the L50 level is the statistical indicator of the timevarying noise signal that is exceeded 50 percent of the time (during each sampling period). This is also called the “median sound level.” The L10 level, likewise, is the value that is exceeded 10 percent of the time (i.e., near the maximum) and this is often known as the “intrusive sound level.” The L90 is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time and is often considered the “effective background level” or “residual noise level.” ▪ Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn or DNL). The energy-average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
▪ Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The energy-average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 5 dB added to the levels occurring during the period from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Note: For general community/environmental noise, CNEL and Ldn values rarely differ by more than 1 dB.
As a matter of practice, Ldn and CNEL values are considered to be equivalent/interchangeable.
▪ Peak Particle Velocity (PPV). The peak rate of speed at which soil particles move (e.g., inches per second) due to ground vibration.
▪ Noise-Sensitive Receptor. Noise- and vibration-sensitive receptors include land uses where quiet environments are necessary for enjoyment and public health and safety.
Residences, schools, motels and hotels, libraries, religious institutions, hospitals, and nursing homes are examples. As such, these have more stringent noise level allowances 3-149
than most commercial or agricultural uses that are not subject to impacts such as sleep disturbance.
SOUND FUNDAMENTALS
Sound is a pressure wave transmitted through the air. It is described in terms of loudness or amplitude (measured in decibels), frequency or pitch (measured in Hertz [Hz] or cycles per second), and duration (measured in seconds or minutes). The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). Changes of 1 to 3 dB are detectable under quiet, controlled conditions and changes of less than 1 dBA are usually indiscernible. A 3 dB change in noise levels is considered the minimum change that is detectable with human hearing in outside environments. A change of 5 dB is readily discernable to most people in an exterior environment whereas a 10 dBA change is perceived as a doubling (or halving) of the sound.
The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies. Sound waves below 16 Hz are not heard at all and are “felt” more as a vibration. Similarly, while people with extremely sensitive hearing can hear sounds as high as 20,000 Hz, most people cannot hear above 15,000 Hz. In all cases, hearing acuity falls off rapidly above about 10,000 Hz and below about 200 Hz. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency dependent rating scale is usually used to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by weighting frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear.
Noise is defined as unwanted sound and is known to have several adverse effects on people, including hearing loss, speech and sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance. Based on these known adverse effects, the federal government, the State of California, and many local governments have established criteria to protect public health and safety and to prevent disruption of certain human activities.
Sound Measurement
Sound pressure is measured through the A-weighted measure to correct for the relative frequency response of the human ear. That is, an A-weighted noise level de-emphasizes low and very high frequencies of sound similar to the human ear’s de-emphasis of these frequencies. Unlike linear units such as inches or pounds, decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, representing points on a sharply rising curve. On a logarithmic scale, an increase of 10 dB is 10 times more intense than 1 dB, while 20 dB is 100 times more intense, and 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense. The decibel system of measuring sound gives a rough connection between the physical intensity of sound and its perceived loudness to the human ear. Ambient sounds generally range from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud).
Sound levels are generated from a source and their decibel level decreases as the distance from that source increases. Sound dissipates exponentially with distance from the noise 3-150
source. This phenomenon is known as “spreading loss.” For a single point source, sound levels decrease by approximately 6 dB for each doubling of distance from the source. This drop-off rate is appropriate for noise generated by on-site operations from stationary equipment or activity at a project site. If noise is produced by a line source, such as highway traffic, the sound decreases by 3 dB for each doubling of distance in a hard site environment. Line source noise in a relatively flat environment with absorptive vegetation decreases by 4.5 dB for each doubling of distance.
Time variation in noise exposure is typically expressed in terms of a steady-state energy level equal to the energy content of the time varying period (called Leq), or alternately, as a statistical description of the sound level that is exceeded over some fraction of a given observation period. For example, the L50 noise level represents the noise level that is exceeded 50 percent of the time. Half the time the noise level exceeds this level and half the time the noise level is less than this level. This level is also representative of the level that is exceeded 30 minutes in an hour. Similarly, the L2, L8 and L25 values represent the noise levels that are exceeded 2, 8, and 25 percent of the time, or 1, 5, and 15 minutes per hour. These “Ln” values are typically used to demonstrate compliance for stationary noise sources with a city’s noise ordinance, as discussed subsequently.
Psychological and Physiological Effects of Noise
Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA. Exposure to high noise levels affects our entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions, and thereby affecting blood pressure, functions of the heart and the nervous system. In comparison, extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA could result in permanent hearing damage. When the noise level reaches 120 dBA, a tickling sensation occurs in the human ear even with short-term exposure. This level of noise is called the threshold of feeling. As the sound reaches 140 dBA, the tickling sensation is replaced by the feeling of pain in the ear. Typical Noise Levels, shows typical noise levels from familiar noise sources in dBA as follows (as excerpted from the Tulare County General Plan Background Report Table 8-9 Typical Noise Levels, page 8-51):
▪ Common Indoor Activities Onset of physical discomfort 120 dBA; ▪ Jet Flyover at 1,000 feet 100 dBA;
▪ Gas Lawn Mower at three feet 90 dBA;
▪ Diesel Truck at 15 meters (50 feet); Food Blender at 1 meter (3 feet); Garbage Disposal at 1 meter (3 feet) 80 dBA;
▪ Noisy Urban Area Daytime; Vacuum Cleaner at 3 meters (10 feet); Commercial Area; Normal speech at 1 meter (3 feet) 70 dBA;
▪ Heavy Traffic at 90 meters (300) feet; Large Business Office 60 dBA; ▪ Quiet Urban Daytime, Dishwasher next room 50 dBA;
▪ Quiet Urban Nighttime Theater; Large Conference Room (background) 40 dBA; ▪ Quiet Suburban Nighttime Theater; Large Conference Room (background) 30 dBA; 3-151
▪ Quiet Rural Nighttime, Library; Bedroom at Night; Concert Hall (background) 20 dBA; ▪ Broadcast/Recording Studio 10 dBA;
▪ Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing 0 dBA
VIBRATION FUNDAMENTALS
Vibration is an oscillating motion. Like noise, vibration is transmitted in waves, but in this case through earth or solid objects. Unlike noise, vibration is typically felt rather than heard.
Vibration can be either natural as in the form of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, or landslides, or human made as from explosions, heavy machinery, or trains. Both natural and humanmade vibration may be continuous such as from operating machinery, or impulsive as from an explosion.
As with noise, vibration can be described by both its amplitude and frequency. Amplitude may be characterized in three ways including displacement, velocity, and acceleration. Particle displacement is a measure of the distance that a vibrated particle travels from its original position. For the purposes of soil displacement it is typically measured in inches or millimeters.
Particle velocity is the rate of speed at which soil particles move in inches per second or millimeters per second. Particle acceleration is the rate of change in velocity with respect to time and is measured in inches per second or millimeters per second. Typically, particle velocity (measured in inches or millimeters per second) and/or acceleration (measured in gravities) are used to describe vibration. Typical human reaction to various levels of peak particle velocity, human reaction, and effects on buildings are summarized as follows:
▪ 0.006–0.019 - Threshold of perception, possibility of intrusion Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of any type.
▪ 0.08 - Vibrations readily perceptible, Recommended upper level of vibration to which ruins and ancient monuments should be subjected.
▪ 0.10 - Level at which continuous vibration begins to annoy people, Virtually no risk of “architectural” (i.e., not structural) damage to normal buildings. ▪ 0.20 - Vibrations annoying to people in buildings, Threshold at which there is a risk to “architectural” damage to normal dwelling – houses with plastered walls and ceilings. ▪ 0.4–0.6 Vibrations considered unpleasant by people subjected to continuous vibrations and unacceptable to some people walking on bridges, Vibrations at a greater level than normally expected from traffic, but would cause “architectural” damage and possibly minor structural damage.
Vibrations also vary in frequency and this affects perception. Typical construction vibrations fall in the 10 to 30 Hz range and usually occur around 15 Hz. Traffic vibrations exhibit a similar range of frequencies; however, due to their suspension systems, buses often generate frequencies around 3 Hz at high vehicle speeds. It is less common, but possible, to measure traffic frequencies above 30 Hz. The way in which vibration is transmitted through the earth is 3-152
called propagation. As vibration waves propagate from a source, the energy is spread over an ever-increasing area such that the energy level striking a given point is reduced with the distance from the energy source. This geometric spreading loss is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. Wave energy is also reduced with distance as a result of material damping in the form of internal friction, soil layering, and void spaces. The amount of attenuation provided by material damping varies with soil type and condition as well as the frequency of the wave.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Primary noise sources in the Project Area is limited to traffic on local roadways (for example, North and South Reservation Roads), The Project site is located adjacent to a natural sound source (rather than a noise source which is unwanted sound) from the South Fork of the Tule River.
Noise-Sensitive Receptors
As noted earlier, certain land uses, such as residences, schools, and hospitals, are particularly sensitive to noise and vibration. Noise sensitive receptors within the Project Area include residences, Tribal Governance uses, an elementary school, a daycare center, recreational areas, and local commercial uses of the Village area. These uses are regarded as sensitive because they are where citizens most frequently engage in activities that are likely to be disturbed by noise, such as reading, studying, sleeping, resting, or otherwise engaging in quiet or passive recreation. Commercial and industrial uses are not particularly sensitive to noise or vibration.
Regulatory Setting
Federal
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
The USEPA has identified the relationship between noise levels and human response. The USEPA has determined that over a 24 hour period, a Leq of 70 dBA will result in some hearing loss.
Interference with activity and annoyance will not occur if exterior levels are maintained at a Leq of 55 dBA and interior levels at or below 45 dBA. While these levels are relevant for planning and design and useful for informational purposes, they are not land use planning criteria because they do not consider economic cost, technical feasibility, or the needs of the community. The USEPA also has set 55 dBA Ldn as the basic goal for exterior residential noise intrusion. However, other federal agencies, in consideration of their own program requirements and goals, as well as difficulty of actually achieving a goal of 55 dBA Ldn, have settled on the 65 dBA Ldn level as their standard. At 65 dBA Ldn, activity interference is kept to a minimum, and annoyance levels are still low. It is also a level that can realistically be achieved. 3-153
Occupational Health and Safety Administration
The federal government regulates occupational noise exposure common in the workplace through the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) under the USEPA. Such limitations would apply to the operation of construction equipment and could also apply to any proposed industrial land uses. Noise exposure of this type is dependent on work conditions and is addressed through a facility’s Health and Safety Plan, as required under OSHA, and is therefore not addressed further in this analysis.
State
State General Plan Guidelines
The State of California, through its General Plan Guidelines, discusses how ambient noise should influence land use and development decisions and includes a table of normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable uses at different noise levels. These suggested noise and land use compatibility standards provide local governments with a basis for setting limits appropriate to their jurisdiction.
California Building Code
The State of California provides a minimum standard for building design through Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, commonly referred to as the California Building Cod” (CBC).
The CBC is in Part 2 of Title 24. The CBC is updated on a three-year cycle. It is effective statewide, but a local jurisdiction may adopt more restrictive standards based on local conditions under specific amendment rules prescribed by the State Building Standards Commission. The CBC Volume 1, Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Section 1207.11.2, Allowable Interior Noise Levels, requires that interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dBA in any habitable room. The noise metric is evaluated as either the Ldn or the CNEL, consistent with the noise element of the local general plan.
California Building Code: CALGreen
The California Building Standards Commission adopted the California Green Building Standards Code, also known as CALGreen. As part of the CBC, CALGreen is in Part 11 of Title 24.
The State of California’s noise insulation standards for nonresidential uses are codified in CALGreen. The CALGreen noise standards are applied to new or renovation construction projects in California to control interior noise levels resulting from exterior noise sources.
Development projects may use either the prescriptive method (CALGreen Section 5.507.4.1) or the performance method (CALGreen Section 5.507.4.2) to show compliance. Under the prescriptive method, a project must demonstrate transmission loss ratings for the wall and roof-ceiling assemblies and exterior windows when located within a noise environment of 65 3-154
dBA CNEL or higher. Under the performance method, a project must demonstrate that interior noise levels do not exceed 50 dBA Leq(1hr).
Local
None that apply to the Project.
Discussion
a) Would the Project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact: As previously noted, the nature of the Project is pedestrian safety enhancements using pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, paths, signage, etc. As such, Project construction is anticipated to last approximately 12 months and will involve temporary, short-term, and intermittent noise sources. The Project could result in two types of temporary noise impacts during construction: (1) the transport of workers and movement of materials to and from the site could incrementally increase noise levels along local access roads; and (2) noise would be generated from activities related to site preparation, grading, and/or physical construction. Construction is performed in distinct steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment, and consequently, its own noise characteristics. Table 3-8, Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels, lists typical construction equipment noise levels recommended for noise-impact assessments, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and noise receptor. The average noise levels generated by construction equipment that could be used in the proposed Project are shown below.
Table 3-8: Noise Equipment Levels
Type of Equipment dBA at 50 feet
Air Compressors 81
Excavators 81
Cranes 83
Forklifts 75
Generators 81
Pavers 89
Rollers 74
Dozers 85
Loaders 85
Backhoes 80
Graders 85
Scrapers 89
Source: Federal Highway Administration Construction
Noise Handbook.
3-155
Typically for construction-related activities, construction equipment and other noisegenerating activities are limited to daytime hours from Monday through Friday. and typically do not occur before 7:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. on any day (except Saturday or Sunday, or before 8:00 a.m. or after 5:00 p.m. on Saturday or Sunday).
Further, it is noted that as the project would be funded through Caltrans, the Project must comply with Caltrans’ noise minimization standards/requirements. Caltrans’ requirements are not mitigation measures as they would be required regardless of magnitude of impacts.
Simply stated, if Caltrans requires a specific noise minimization practice during construction-related activities, it must be performed to their satisfaction.
Because noise generated from construction-related activities would be short-term, temporary, and intermittent, construction-related activities. Noise minimization could be included in construction-related contracts to limit noise impacts. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, the impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
b) Would the Project result in generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact: Projects that use vibration-intensive construction activities— such as pile drivers, jackhammers, and vibratory rollers—near sensitive receptors must be evaluated for potential vibration impacts. As previously noted, the nature of the Project is pedestrian safety enhancements using pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, paths, signage, etc.
As such, the Project would not utilize this type of equipment during construction-related activities, and as such, the Project would not generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. In the event that this type of equipment is used, the duration would be short-term, temporary, and intermittent. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
c) For a Project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or, an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact: The Project Site is greater than two miles from Porterville Municipal Airport and is not within the airport land use plan for that airport nor is the Project Site within an elevated noise contour. As such, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project 3-156
area to excessive noise levels. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, impacts would result in no impact.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Based on the analysis and information provided herein, mitigation measures would not be required.
Cumulative Impact: Less than Significant
The cumulative area is limited to the Tule River Reservation and Project areas. Given the nature of the Project, that is, pedestrian safety enhancements using pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, paths, signage, etc.; the short-term, temporary, and intermittent construction-related activities and no change to current vehicle-generated noise (as the Project is intended to encourage walking and cycling rather than vehicle usage), there would no significant noise or vibration related impacts. The analysis of the proposed project, discussed above, addresses cumulative impacts with regard to noise, ground borne noise, and vibration. Although multiple simultaneous nearby noise sources may, in combination, result in higher overall noise levels, this effect is captured and accounted for by the ambient noise level metrics that form the basis of the thresholds of significance for noise analysis. Any measurement of sound or ambient noise, whether for the purpose of evaluating land use compatibility, establishing compliance with exterior and interior noise standards, or determining point-source violations of a noise threshold would incorporate noise from all other nearby perceptible sources (emphasis added). Additionally, although noise attenuation (that is, the reduction of sound intensity as it travels through a space) is influenced by a variety of topographical, meteorological, and other factors, noise levels decrease rapidly with distance, and vibration impacts decrease even more rapidly. As noted earlier, construction-related activities (which would be the largest contributor to noise and vibration) are anticipated to occur during the short-term, temporarily, and intermittently, and will cease upon completion of construction-related activities. As such, the Project’s impact would be less than significant.
3-157
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Environmental Setting
According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2023), American Community Survey 5-year estimates, the Tule River Reservation had a total population of 913 and 291 housing units. The Tribe’s total enrollment is estimated at 1,857 (see: https://censusreporter.org/profiles/25200US4300R-tuleriver-reservation/).
However, the Tule River Indian Tribe’s May 20, 2024 “Request for Proposal for the Master Planning Service” Project indicated the “The Tribe has approximately 1,995 members, with approximately 1,614 that live on the Reservation.” (see page 1). This estimate and the U.S. Census Bureau 2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates vary by 138 total enrollment members but by 710 members living within Reservation lands. Regardless of the discrepancy of population estimates, the differences would provide a benefit in regard to active transportation and would not affect the ability of the Project to move forward.
Regulatory Setting
Federal
None that apply to the Project.
State
3-158
California Housing Element Law (California Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589.8) includes provisions related to the requirements for housing elements of local government General Plans. Among these requirements, some of the necessary parts include an assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs. Additionally, to ensure that counties and cities recognize their responsibilities in contributing to the attainment of the State housing goals, the Government Code calls for local jurisdictions to plan for, and allow the construction of, a share of the region’s projected housing needs. However, as the Project does not include any housing, Housing Element Law does not apply.
Regional
None that apply to the Project.
Local
As noted in the Sustainable Transportation Circulation Element for the Tule River Comprehensive Master Plan (STCETRCMP), “Tule River Tribe Housing Plan Currently, the most pressing issue facing the Tribe is a lack of affordable housing for enrolled members of the Tribe.
This element of the planning program identifies the current housing situation on the Reservation, explores opportunities for new housing, identifies constraints and growing needs, and ultimately provides a construction plan for new and replacement units. The Housing Plan has been prepared to assist in the preparation of the Master Plan, the Specific Plans and the Sustainable Transport Plan.” (see STCETRCMP, page 6). However, as the Project does not include a housing component, the Tule River Tribe Housing Plan does not apply to the Project.
Discussion
a) Would the Project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less Than Significant Impact: Given the nature of the Project, that is, pedestrian safety enhancements using pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, paths, signage, etc.; the Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. As such, the Project would not impact housing or population. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, there would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Based on the analysis and information provided herein, no mitigation measures are required. 3-159
b) Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact: The nature of the Project can be summarized as pedestrian safety enhancements using pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, paths, signage, etc.). As such, the Project would not involve the removal of existing residences and would not displace any people. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, no impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Based on the analysis and information provided herein, no mitigation measures are required.
Cumulative Impact: No Impact
The cumulative area is limited to the Tule River Reservation. As noted earlier, the nature of the Project can be summarized as pedestrian safety enhancements using pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, paths, signage, etc.). As described in impact discussions Item a) and Item b), implementation of the Project would not induce a substantial amount of unplanned population growth or growth for which inadequate planning has occurred, or displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Rather, the Project would provide connectivity to existing Tribal Governance uses, commercial uses, residential and other uses within the Village area where the Project will be located. As noted earlier, the Project would fulfill the objectives of several Active Transportation Plans by providing walkable and cycling options that include enhanced safety features.
Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to population and housing, and there would be no cumulative impact.
3-160
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the Project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need
for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable serve
ratios, response times of other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
Environmental Setting
Fire Protection
The Project site served by the Tule River Fire Department (TRFD), which will continue to provide fire protection services upon development of the Project. The Project would be required to adhere to all fire safety regulations and compliance with building codes, to ensure adequate fire protection during Project construction-related activities.
TRFD Staffing and Facilities
As described in the TRFD website, “Current Staffing includes 14 full time fire personnel: One Fire Chief, One Battalion Chief (B.C.), Three Fire Captains (F.C.), Three Fire Apparatus Engineers (F.A.E.) and Six Firefighters (F.F.). Each trained as a Firefighter and Emergency Medical Technician. Three shifts (A, B, & C) working a 48/96 schedule include, four personnel are on duty staffing a 2011 Pierce Arrow XT PUC Type 1 Engine, Ford F-550 Rosenbauer Type IV Patrol, and a 2010 Ford F-350 E-Series Basic Life Support Ambulance serving the Tule River Indian Reservation 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.
3-161
Tule River Fire Department Wildland branch was created 12 years ago. Staffing includes Four full time positions: One Fire Management Officer, One Assistant Fire Management Officer, Two Wildland Fire Captains; seasonal employment includes, five to seven personnel seven days a week, eight hours per day during the wildland fire season. During the fire season wildland personnel staff two fire engines; one Pierce type III and one Ford F-550 type VI. They are considered a national resource and respond to wildland fires on the reservation as well as within the United States.” (see: https://tulerivertribe-nsn.gov/departments/fire-deparment/) Police Protection
Law enforcement services (police protection services) are and would continue to be provided to the Project site by the Tule River Tribal Police Department (TRTPD). According to information provided in the Tule River Tribe Department of Public safety website, “The TRTPD Police Officer/High Country Ranger division totals five officers; all have Special Law Enforcement Commission (SLEC) through the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) recognizing them as federal police officers. We recently have implemented a community oriented style of policing that allows officers to work with community and remain proactive in patrolling and establishing solid relationships with departments that deal directly with the youth. We work collaboratively with the Tulare County Sheriff’s Office (TCSO) as well as other municipal/state agencies/federal agencies i.e. (Probation/Parole, California Fish and Game, US Forestry).
During the summer months we have established and maintained a great relationship with the United States Army National Guard (USANG) who supports the TRTPD with air surveillance and foot patrols of reported marijuana cultivation, along with other state task force groups that support eradication/reclamation of the Tule River Indian Reservation.” (see: https://tulerivertribe-nsn.gov/dps-2/)
The TRTPD also includes a Community Service Officer division. According to information provided in the Tule River Tribe Department of Public safety website, “The TRTPD Community Service Officer (CSO) division totals five Officers that assist and respond to calls with TRTPD Sworn Police Officers. They rotate monthly shifts at the TRTPD high country access post that greatly assist in monitoring traffic/personnel entering the mountainous area. The CSO division also assists Eagle Mountain Casino (EMC) events as well as community events as needed. Most have their PC 832 (laws of arrest) training as well as specialized training through the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (F.L.E.T.C.) pertaining to courtroom duties.” (see:
https://tulerivertribe-nsn.gov/dps-2/)
Schools
As indicated in the Tule River Reservation Website, “Located on the Tule River Reservation, Towanits School has grown one-grade level each year and became a full K-5 elementary school starting the 2017/18 academic year. Towanits School operates a traditional school year (Mid-August and the end of the first week in June) operating M-F from 8:00 am – 2:30 pm for 3-162
kindergarten and from 8:00 am – 3:00 pm for grades 1-5. Towanits School’s winter, spring, and summer recesses are aligned with those of Porterville Schools to ensure families/students have common days off.” (see: https://tulerivertribe-nsn.gov/towanits/. Students of all grade levels attend Porterville Unified School District schools.
Libraries
There are no libraries located within the Tule River Reservation.
Parks and Recreation
The Tribe provides recreational opportunities such as the softball field, Tule Gym, and Tule River Recreation Department in the Village area), and nearby Painted Rock Campground. Also, the Hyder Ranch Sports Complex is currently being renovated (Tribe’s July 2025 News Vol. 06 Newsletter, page 20 at: https://tulerivertribe-nsn.gov/news/#) However, it is noted that the Project does not include a parks and recreation component other than the trail.
Regulatory Setting
Federal
None that apply to the Project.
State
None that apply to the Project.
Regional and Local
Tulare County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJ-LHMP) In summary the Tule River Tribe is a participant in the MJ-LMHP; see detailed discussion at Item XX. Wildfire.
Discussion
a) Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable serve ratios, response times of other performance objectives for any of the public services:
3-163
i. Fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact: As previously noted, the nature of the Project can be summarized as pedestrian safety enhancements and pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, and paths that would not result in a substantial impact to fire protection facilities or capabilities.
Also noted earlier, the Project site is served by the Tule River Fire Department (TRFD), which will continue to provide fire protection services upon development of the Project. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, the impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
ii. Police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact: As previously noted, the nature of the Project can be summarized as pedestrian safety enhancements and pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, and paths that would not result in a substantial impact to police protection facilities or capabilities. Also noted earlier, the Project site is served by the Tule River Tribal Police Department (TRTPD), which will continue to provide police protection services upon development of the Project Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, the impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
iii. Schools?
No Impact: As previously noted, the nature of the Project can be summarized as pedestrian safety enhancements and pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, and paths that encourage active walking and cycling. As such, the Project would not generate additional school-aged students and would not result to an increase in enrollment at local schools.
Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, there would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
iv. Parks?
No Impact: The nature of the Project can be summarized as pedestrian safety enhancements and pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, and paths that encourage active walking and cycling. As such, it is unlikely that the Project would not generate additional population increases that would result in the need for additional park land.
Therefore, based on the analysis and information herein, the Project would result in no impact.
3-164
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
v. Other public facilities?
No Impact: The nature of the Project can be summarized as pedestrian safety enhancements and pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, and paths that encourage active walking and cycling. As the Project would not result in new residents or a population increase on or near the Project Site, it can reasonably be inferred that the Project would result in no increased demand of other public facilities including schools, parks, or other recreation facilities. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Based on the analysis and information provided herein, no mitigation measures are required.
Cumulative Impact: Less than Significant
The cumulative area is limited to the Tule River Reservation. The nature of the Project can be summarized as pedestrian safety enhancements and pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, and paths that encourage active walking and cycling. Regarding schools, parks, or other public facilities, as noted earlier, the nature of the Project would not result in a population increase that could subsequently result in a change to or demand for new (or expanded) facilities of schools, parks or other public facilities. There would be no cumulative to these resources.
Regarding fire and police protection services, both would continue to provide these services regardless of the Project and would not be substantially or adversely affected upon Project completion. Hypothetically, it is possible that a construction-related accident/incident may occur; however, both the TRFD and the TRPD have the training, equipment, and personnel to adequately respond in a timely manner. Therefore, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to fire and police protection services. As such, based on the analysis and information provided herein, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. 3-165
XVI.RECREATION
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the Project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the Project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Environmental Setting
See discussion at resource XIV Public Services.
Regulatory Setting
See discussion at resource XIV Public Services.
Discussion
a) Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
No Impact: The nature of the Project can be summarized as pedestrian safety enhancements and pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, and paths that encourage active walking and cycling. It would not include any park or recreational facilities. As such, it precludes the potential for increases in population that are typically the result of development of residences and would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks to the extent that substantial physical deterioration would occur or be accelerated. Also, see Item XV a.iv.). Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, there would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
3-166
b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact: The nature of the Project can be summarized as pedestrian safety enhancements and pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, and paths that encourage active walking and cycling. As such, it precludes the potential for increases in population that are typically the result of development of residences. The Project would not include any recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of any recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Also, see Item XV a.iv.). Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, there would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Based on the analysis and information provided herein, no mitigation measures are required.
Cumulative Impact: No Impact.
The cumulative area is limited to the Tule River Reservation. As noted earlier, the nature of the Project can be summarized as pedestrian safety enhancements and pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, and paths that encourage active walking and cycling. The nature of the Project would not result in a population increase that could subsequently increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks to the extent that substantial physical deterioration would occur or be accelerated, nor would it include any recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of any recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to park and recreational facilities and there would be no cumulative impacts associated with the Project. 3-167
XVII. TRANSPORTATION
As noted earlier, this IS/MND will also rely on information (e.g., plans, programs, policies, studies, statistics, etc.) of previously completed (and in some instances adopted) documents such as:
Tule River Indian Reservation ATP plan (December 2022); California Transportation Plan 2050 (CTP 2021); 2018 Sustainable Transportation/Circulation Element (ST/CE) for the Tule River Comprehensive Master Plan, Tule River Tribal Transportation Safety Assessment (T2SA 2016); Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) Regional Active Transportation Plan ((RATP) 2016, 2017, 2020); 2018 and 2022 Tulare County Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS);
Environmental Setting
The Project is entirely within the Tule River Reservation. As noted earlier, the Project is predominantly surrounded by a mix of existing public uses such as the Justice Center, Elders Center, Fire Department, Public Works Department and scattered residential uses to the south; and Tribal Administration, Housing Authority, Health Center, Gymnasium, an Elementary School, Day Care Facility, and scattered residential uses to the north. The Project’s length is located near the Village area where Tribe members can access the uses noted earlier. Scattered urban-type mixed uses (as described earlier) are generally adjacent to North Reservation Drive north of the river (where the majority of the Project will occur). The Project also includes areas along South Reservation Road south of the river (see Figure 2-3) where the proposed Project site is along a narrow naturally formed valley of the South Fork of the Tule River (Tule River).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance
or policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with the
CEQA guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision
(b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency
access?
3-168
Generally, the topography of this area is relatively uneven-to-relatively flat adjacent to the river, with hillsides rising east of Indian Reservation Drive. Areas within approximately 0.25 miles of the Project site include scattered residences spread within hills. Generally, the undeveloped hillsides of the Sierra Nevada Mountains dominate the immediate surrounding areas.
As noted from an excerpt of the Tule River ATP, at Vehicular Collisions with Children Crossing Between the Education Center and Gymnasium, “ This area is a priority safety concern due to numerous vehicle collisions with youth is the crossing of North Reservation Road between the Education Center and Gymnasium. These two facilities have frequent crossings as there are numerous community events and activities scheduled between the two locations. There crosswalk markings are deteriorated and are located at an angle to the travel lanes.
Additionally there are no sidewalks, bollards, RRFBs or other safety measures to slow vehicle speeds and facilitate safer crossings for children.
Unsafe River Crossings
The Tule River runs from west to east through the Reservation and creates a barrier for pedestrian and bicycle connections to and from residences, public facilities, or community events that are located on both the north and south side of the Tule River. To cross the Tule River, residents have to walk along North and South Reservation Road and cross at the Silver Bridge or Million Dollar Bridge. However, these are not convenient crossing locations and also require residents to walk along unpaved shoulders or within the travel lanes as there are no pedestrian facilities. Currently, residents can cross using the existing Swinging Bridge, which is an informally constructed wire suspension bridge that is approximately 140 feet (ft) long and 3 ft wide with deteriorating planks of wood for the bridge deck. The bridge is a safety concern as it swings during crossings and has large gaps in the bridge deck. Additionally, the bridge is not ADA-compliant. The other crossing point is between the residences and Daycare Center along Cow Mountain Road to the Justice Center. The Justice Center provides residents with public facilities including showers. Residents will hike down the vegetated hillside and cross the stony river bed when water levels are low. However, during the summer months when it is hot, residents need to be careful of rattlesnakes. During the winter months, when river levels are high, residents cannot use the crossing point and have to walk long distances along Reservation Road.
Existing Street System
The Project is located within the Village Area (the community and civic center) of the Tule River Reservation, a rural area in Porterville, Tulare County. The Village Area has had longstanding issues with pedestrian and vehicle collision accidents along North Reservation Road, as it is the primary transportation corridor for vehicles and pedestrians.
However, there are no pedestrian facilities along North Reservation Road or throughout the Reservation. Since it is the primary transportation corridor, residents and children walk along 3-169
unpaved shoulders (some areas lack roadway shoulders so residents walk within the travel lane) or informal river crossings to access key community services and facilities including the Tribal Education Center, Gymnasium, Community Health Clinic, Tribal Council, Justice Center, Cow Mountain Daycare Center, and other public service buildings. To address longstanding and immediate pedestrian safety concerns, the community identified the highest priority areas as the following:
1. Youth crossings between the Education Center and Gymnasium; and
2. Residents and youth informally crossing the Tule River to access residences, public services, or community events.
Most transportation modes in Tule River include horses, quads, bikes, walking, motorcycle.
Additionally, Residents use an informal dirt trail along the southern edge of the Tule River to avoid the road. The trail used to be a cattle trail. Residents use the pedestrian-only Swinging Bridge to cross between North and South Reservation Rd. It is the only crossing point between Silver Bridge to Million Dollar Bridge. It is an informal suspension bridge with wooden planks.” (see ATP, pages 20-21)
Transit
“According to the TCAG 2022 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Tribal Outreach Strategy, The City of Porterville is the closest community to the reservation and many tribe members live, work and recreate in Porterville. Additionally, many of their children attend Porterville schools.
The City of Porterville has a long-standing relationship with the tribe and contracts with them to provide needed services, including transit. According to the City of Porterville, Transit Route 9 is not currently operating to the Tule River Reservation, but a modified Route 9 may be started up later in 2022. The Tribal Council would like to alter Porterville Transit’s Route 9 to end at the Park & Ride lot located at the intersection of Highway 190 and Road 240. Tribal transportation would then pick up residents and bring them into the Tule River Reservation. A checkpoint would be installed west of Water Tower Road / BIA 240, where residents would provide identification.
This would reduce the number of non-residents entering the Tule River Reservation and youths riding the bus into town and not returning.” (see ATP, page 22) Collision Data
“There is a lack of collision data available through the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) regarding the Tule River Reservation. SWITRS is a database of collisions and traffic-related accidents that are reported by the California Highway Patrol. The Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) was used to map SWITRS data between January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2021, which indicated that 10 total crashes occurred with 12 total injured during this 10-year period within the Tule River Village Area. No pedestrians or bicyclists were involved in any of the 10 SWITRS-documented incidents.” (see ATP, page 23) 3-170
Figure 3-3 Existing Conditions
Note: Figure 2-7 depicts the pedestrian bridge prior to its destruction by Tule River floodwaters 3-171
Figure 3-4: Existing pedestrian bridge condition facing south Source: CRA prepared by Soar Environmental Consulting; Appendix C 3-172
Figure 3-5: Existing pedestrian bridge condition facing northwest Source: : CRA prepared by Soar Environmental Consulting; Appendix C) 3-173
Figure 3-6 Aerial View of Project Area Existing Conditions 3-174
Figure 3-7 Aerial View of The Village Existing Conditions Truck Routes
None that would apply to the Project.
Rail
None that would apply to the Project.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The are no pedestrian sidewalks or bicycle facilities within the Project area. The intent of the Project can be summarized as providing pedestrian enhancement in the form of sidewalks, a 3-175
trail, two pedestrian bridges, crosswalks, signage and other amenities as previously noted at the Project description (see page 3-3).
Airports
None that apply to the Project. The nearest airport is Porterville Municipal Airport approximately 14 miles west of the Tule River Reservation.
Regulatory Setting
Federal
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is implemented by regulations included in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR § 1500.), which require careful consideration of the harmful effects of federal actions or plans, including projects that receive federal funds, if they may have a significant adverse effect on the environment. NEPA mandates that all federal agencies carry out their regulations, policies, and programs in accordance with NEPA’s policies of environmental protection.
Any project undertaken on the recommendation of this document may meet the definition of a “project” under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and will be subject to NEPA review if the project receives Federal funding.” (see Tule River ATP, page 7) The implementation project is not a “federal action” as defined by NEPA, 24 CFR 1508.18 and therefore is not subject to further review under NEPA. The implementation is a Categorically Excluded project pursuant to Federal Guidelines.
“Federal Land Policy Management Act
Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) specifically directs the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to coordinate with state, local, and tribal governments to assist in resolving inconsistencies between BLM’s land-use plans and local land-use plans, to the maximum extent consistent with federal law and the purposes of FLPMA” (Tule River ATP, page 7) United States Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (Section 4[f]) Section 4(f) of the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Act of 1966 affords special protection to public recreational lands and facilities, including: local parks and school facilities that are open and available to the general public for recreational purposes; significant cultural resources; historical resources; and natural wildlife refuges. Federally funded transportation improvement projects are prohibited from the encroachment (direct or 3-176
constructive use, or a take) of Section 4(f) lands unless it can be demonstrated that no feasible and prudent alternative exists.
State
California Transportation Plan
“The California Transportation Plan (CTP) 2050 (2021) is a long-range plan to create “safe, resilient, and universally accessible transportation system that supports vibrant communities, advances racial and economic justice, and improves public and environmental health. The CTP 2050 identifies transportation needs voiced by Tribal Communities including:
• Reliable access to Tribal lands
• Road safety
• Multi-jurisdictional communication
• Inadequate funding
• Transportation planning capacity
• Multimodal mobility
• Culture resources protection; etc.” (Tule River ATP, page 8) Senate Bill (SB) 743
With the passage of SB 743 (September 2013) and the subsequent adoption of revised CEQA Guidelines (December 2019), level of service, also referred to as LOS, can no longer be used as a criterion for identifying significant transportation impacts for most projects under CEQA. Level of service is the measure of the average amount of delay experienced by vehicle drivers at an intersection or along a road segment during the most congested time of day, while the new CEQA metric (VMT) measures the total number of daily miles traveled by vehicles on the roadway network and thereby the impacts on the environment from those miles traveled. Level of service is a measure of local vehicle congestion at an intersection or on a road segment, and VMT is a measure of the total miles of vehicle travel measured at an area-wide or projectlevel scale. In other words, SB 743 changed the focus of transportation impact analysis in CEQA from measuring quality-of-life impacts to drivers, to measuring the physical impacts of driving on the environment. According to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory)1 land use projects with one or more of the following characteristics would generate lower VMT than conventional development:
▪ Higher land use densities
▪ Mix of project uses
▪ Support of a citywide jobs-housing balance (i.e., provide housing in a job rich area, or vice versa)
▪ Proximity to the core of a region
▪ Proximity to high-quality transit service
▪ Located in highly walkable or bikeable areas
3-177
As the Project is located in a highly walkable and bikeable area, it is consistent with the intent of SB 743 to reduce vehicle miles travelled.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Caltrans is the primary State agency responsible for transportation issues. Caltrans recognizes four classifications of bicycle facilities.
▪ Class I. Commonly referred to as a bike path or bikeway, Class I facilities are separated from automobile traffic for the exclusive use of bicyclists. ▪ Class II. Commonly referred to as bike lanes, Class II facilities are dedicated for bicyclists immediately adjacent to automobile traffic.
▪ Class III. Commonly referred to as bike routes, Class III facilities are on-street routes where bicyclists and automobiles share the road.
▪ Class IV. Commonly referred to as cycle tracks or protected bike lanes, Class IV facilities combine elements of Class I and Class II facilities to offer an exclusive bicycle route immediately adjacent to a roadway, similar to a Class II facility, but include a physical separation from traffic with raised curbs, plastic delineators, or parked automobiles.
State of California Active Transportation Program 2040
The Active Transportation Program (ATP) is a statewide program administered by Caltrans that provides funding for infrastructure that
1. Increases the proportion of trips accomplished by biking and walking;
2. Increase safety and mobility for non-motorized users;
3. Advances the active transportation effort of regional agencies to achieve greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals;
4. Enhances public health;
5. Ensures that disadvantaged communities fully share in the benefits of the program; and
6. Provides a broad spectrum of projects to benefit many types of active transportation users. ATP funding prioritizes projects that directly benefit DACs. (see page 33 at https://catc.ca.gov/programs/active-transportation-program) Multimodal System Enhancement, Active System (Bicycling and Walking) of the CTP 2040 California must continue to promote active transportation. It is a key component of the CTP 2040. Programs such as the Active Transportation Program (ATP) were created to encourage increased use of these active modes of transportation by increasing proportion, mobility, and accessibility of biking and walking trips. These trips enhance public health while reducing GHG and congestion. Often the transit system and active transportation go hand-in-hand. Thus, another proven practice is to implement more Complete Streets policies throughout cities in California. Complete Streets are those that enable safe access and mobility amongst motorists, bicyclist, pedestrians and transit service. (See California Transportation 3-178
Commission, ATP at MULTIMODAL SYSTEM ENHANCEMENTS, ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM (BICYCLING AND WALKING), page 63, at: http://www.catc.ca.gov/programs/ATP.htm.) Tribal Government Funding and Partnerships of the CTP 2040 “In the Tribal Listening Sessions conducted as preparation for creating this plan, tribal government representatives noted that funding is the main transportation difficulty they face.
Transportation funding is vital for providing needed community services and sustaining vibrant and diverse tribal economies. Funding for tribal transportation projects is also necessary for facilities needed by tribal communities in their mostly rural settings.
Planning funds are essential in helping tribes develop their transportation systems.
Transportation plans are required for several programs and are the foundation of successful transportation systems. A crucial component of planning, and therefore funding, is data. Many tribal governments lack sufficient data for planning and funding purposes due to lack of funding and rural locations. Recreational traffic is often not counted in many traffic studies.
Tribes must also overcome institutional restrictions to partner with local and regional transportation agencies. As a result, many tribes experience difficulties accessing transportation funding.
Accessing transportation funding is a priority goal of California tribal governments. As Stated previously, Native American tribes are sovereign governments. In California, a majority of transportation funding is given to local governments or regional agencies. Thus, tribes must compete with cities, counties, and other local agencies for limited funds. This intense competition makes it difcult for tribal governments to access needed funding and provide essential services to their communities. New strategies are required to improve tribal transportation systems.
Innovative funding mechanisms are critical in providing better funding access. Partnerships between tribes, local governments, and regional agencies create new opportunities in transportation and provide mutually beneficial solutions to community problems. Building collaborative and cooperative relationships help ensure maximum benefits and efficiency for all. In addition, other creative solutions could empower tribal governments to develop their own transportation networks. These solutions may include partnerships with multiple tribal governments in tribal transportation funding districts, a separate funding reservation for tribes, and special transportation districts.” (See: California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans) California Transportation Plan 2040 (CTP 2040) page 34 at: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/transportation-planning/documents/f0004899_ctp2040_a11y.pdf) California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) California Transportation Plan 2050 (CTP 2050)
“Tribal Nations
3-179
California has the largest Native American population of any U.S. state, with 109 federally recognized tribes in 34 counties, and many without Federal recognition. There are almost 100 Tribal reservations (Rancherias) throughout the state, and large groups of Native Americans (indigenous Californians and other Native peoples) living in major urban areas such as Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose, San Diego, and Los Angeles. Federally recognized Tribes are sovereign nations, administering programs and providing services to Tribal and non-Tribal members of the community. In accordance with EO B-10-11 (2011), California engages with Native American groups in consultation of transportation planning activities and for the advancement of environmental justice goals.
Federal and states laws are also in place to protect tribal lands, assets, resources, and rights for the benefit of tribes and their members. The California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) Tribal Transportation Policy obligates respect for tribal sovereignty and pursuit of good-faith relations with tribes and the Director’s Policy 19, “Working with Native American Communities”, requires the Department to “recognize and respect important California Native American rights, sites, traditions, and practices” as well as to “[consult] with tribal Governments prior to making decision, taking actions or implementing programs that may impact their communities.” The Caltrans Native American Liaison Branch (NALB) serves as a liaison between Caltrans, the 109 Federally recognized tribes in California; state, local, and regional transportation agencies; and other key stakeholders. NALB facilitates compliance with Caltrans policy and federal statutes and regulations for Tribal Governments involvement in transportation planning and programming. The program also works to help California Native American communities identify and implement transportation safety solutions that will lead to improved safety for all motorists, passengers, bicyclists, and pedestrians, as well as help Tribal governments identify potential sources of funding for improvements.
Tribal Transportation Needs
➢ Tribal listening sessions were held across the state to better understand the transportation needs facing Tribal communities. The following key themes emerged:
➢ Reliable access to Tribal lands
➢ Road safety
➢ Multi-jurisdictional communication
➢ Inadequate funding
➢ Transportation planning capacity
➢ Multimodal mobility
➢ Culture resources protection
➢ Emergency response
➢ Training and technical assistance
➢ Active partnerships” (See CTP 2050, pages 34-35)
Tribal Government Funding Partnerships
3-180
In the Tribal Listening Sessions conducted as preparation for creating this plan, tribal government representatives noted that funding is the main transportation difficulty they face.
Transportation funding is vital for providing needed community services and sustaining vibrant and diverse tribal economies. Funding for tribal transportation projects is also necessary for facilities needed by tribal communities in their mostly rural settings.
Planning funds are essential in helping tribes develop their transportation systems.
Transportation plans are required for several programs and are the foundation of successful transportation systems. A crucial component of planning, and therefore funding, is data. Many tribal governments lack sufficient data for planning and funding purposes due to lack of funding and rural locations. Recreational traffic is often not counted in many traffic studies.
Tribes must also overcome institutional restrictions to partner with local and regional transportation agencies. As a result, many tribes experience difficulties accessing transportation funding.
Accessing transportation funding is a priority goal of California tribal governments. As Stated previously, Native American tribes are sovereign governments. In California, a majority of transportation funding is given to local governments or regional agencies. Thus, tribes must compete with cities, counties, and other local agencies for limited funds. This intense competition makes it difficult for tribal governments to access needed funding and provide essential services to their communities. New strategies are required to improve tribal transportation systems.
Innovative funding mechanisms are critical in providing better funding access. Partnerships between tribes, local governments, and regional agencies create new opportunities in transportation and provide mutually beneficial solutions to community problems. Building collaborative and cooperative relationships help ensure maximum benefits and efficiency for all. In addition, other creative solutions could empower tribal governments to develop their own transportation networks. These solutions may include partnerships with multiple tribal governments in tribal transportation funding districts, a separate funding reservation for tribes, and special transportation districts.” (CTP Plan 2040, page 34) Regional
Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG)
2018 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTS/SCS) “TCAG Regional Active Transportation Plan
TCAG Regional Active Transportation Plan (RATP) (adopted May 2016; amended November 2017, January 2020) identifies the pedestrian and bike related goals, strategies and priority 3-181
projects that were incorporated into the Tulare County Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The RTAP identifies the one priority project (R-1) for the Tule River Reservation, which proposes implementing pedestrian safety features on North Reservation Road between Cow Mountain Road and the Million Dollar Bridge. The project includes sidewalk installations, safety signage, river walkways and bridge walkways, and speed bumps. However, Caltrans has requested that traffic-calming alternatives to speed bumps be considered due to the damage the bumps can cause to cars. The estimated costs was $2,399,000.” (2018 RTP/SCS page 125)
“Tulare County Regional Transportation Plan - Sustainable Communities Strategy As required by the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (Senate Bill 375), the 2018 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) contains a Sustainable Communities Strategy that considers both land use and transportation together in a single, integrated planning process that accommodates regional housing needs and projected growth. The 2018 RTP/SCS updates the current RTP/SCS adopted by TCAG in June 2014 and continues the planning vision for the Tulare County region laid out by the 2014 plan.
As have past Regional Transportation Plans, the 2018 RTP/SCS plans how the region will invest limited transportation funds to maintain, operate and improve an integrated, multi-modal transportation system that facilitates the efficient movement of people and goods. The updated plan identifies specific strategies, policies and actions, including a list of programmed and planned transportation projects affordable within the region’s anticipated reasonably available transportation funding, to achieve regional goals and priorities and meet the current and future needs of the region. The planning horizon of the 2018 RTP/SCS is 2042.” (2018 RTP/SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy, page D-1 at: https://tularecog.org/tcag/planning/rtp/rtp20181/ “TRIBAL CONSULTATION
TCAG continues consultation efforts with the Tule River Indian Reservation in Tulare County.
TCAG strives to have at least one formal consultation a year and other staff-level or informal meetings as needed. A member of the Tule River Indian Reservation has been on the TCAG Technical Advisory Committee since 2001. Further, TCAG is one of only a few MPOs in the state that has had a MOU with a Tribe to develop and construct a state-funded transportation safety project. An important safety project, for Reservation Road, was completed in 2007.
In 2009 TCAG participated in the Valley-wide Tribal Collaboration effort made possible with a Caltrans Planning Grant for transportation planning and mapping. The grant was awarded to the eight Valley MPOs and completed in September in 2009. Collaboration efforts with Valley tribes continue. In December 2012 the City of Porterville started a fixed route service between the city and the Tule River Reservation. In 2021, The Chairman of the Tule River Tribal Council sent a formal request for TCAG’s partnership with the City of Porterville in managing the creation and development of the Tribe’s very first Active Transportation Plan (ATP). The ATP 3-182
focuses on improving bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in terms of both safety and accessibility. Other information regarding TCAG’s ongoing tribal consultation efforts is in Appendix 2-Z – Tribal Public Participation Plan.” (2022 RTP/SCS Communities Strategy, Chapter D Action Element, pages D-29 and D-30 at: https://tularecog.org/tcag/planning/rtp/rtp2022/chapter-d-action-element/). https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eHI1QA21_cb2Bgs_WoDP9VeHoVVUX11w/view Local
Sustainable Transportation Circulation Element for the Tule River Comprehensive Master Plan Tule River Tribe Sustainable Transportation/Circulation Element (STCETRMP) “The Sustainable Transportation/Circulation Element for the Tule River Comprehensive Master Plan (STCETRMP) will be developed with a multi-modal approach to sustainable transportation.
As such it will include roads, transit, bicycles, pedestrians, trails and parking. The Plan will be directly linked to planned land uses currently under development by the Tribe. The Plan will address the need for the maintenance of existing roads within the Reservation and the expansion of the road network to serve future development of the Tribe. The Sustainable Transportation/Circulation Element includes an inventory of the existing conditions and projection of future conditions with the development of the planned land uses and supporting transportation systems.” (Sustainable Transportation/Circulation Element for the Tule River Comprehensive Master Plan (STCETRMP), page 16, which can be accessed at:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eHI1QA21_cb2Bgs_WoDP9VeHoVVUX11w/view “Tule River Tribe Sustainable Transportation/Circulation Element Sustainable Transportation/Circulation Element for the Tule River Comprehensive Master Plan (STCETRMP) will be developed with a multi-modal approach to sustainable transportation. As such it will include roads, transit, bicycles, pedestrians, trails and parking. The Plan will be directly linked to planned land uses currently under development by the Tribe. The Plan will address the need for the maintenance of existing roads within the Reservation and the expansion of the road network to serve future development of the Tribe. The Sustainable Transportation/Circulation Element includes an inventory of the existing conditions and projection of future conditions with the development of the planned land uses and supporting transportation systems.” (STCETRMP, page 17).
“In 2012 the Tule River Indian Tribe prepared it first transit plan. This document is unique in its approach to planning for Tribal transit service within this very dynamic community. With the completion of this Plan, the Tribe has been working toward a more integrated transit system.
The Plan provides guidance for the future development of both inter-community and intracommunity service. The over-arching goal is to provide for expanded access to jobs for tribal members off-Reservation as well as better access to on-Reservation jobs for employees living 3-183
in outlying communities. The Plan will also address the need for expanded access to educational opportunities within the City of Porterville.
The Tule River Indian Tribe prepared the five-year Transit Plan (TP) as a prelude to planning, programming and implementation of both inter-community and intra-community transit service. This plan was prepared in cooperation with the Tule River Indian Tribe and with assistance from the Tulare County Association of Governments and the City of Porterville. This Transit Plan presents a summary of the existing conditions related to transit services within area, defines the goals and objectives of the system, and presents a five-year service, capital, and financial plan for the system. As part of this process the Transit Plan will be updated to include the years 2018 to 2022.” (see STCETRMP, page 17) Chapter 2 Policies of the STCETRMP contain numerous policies that address the Roads System, Tribal Transit System, Bicycle System, Pedestrian System, Multi-Use Trail System and Greenhouse Gases. The policies interact and complement each other to provide sustainability.
The following addresses active transportation:
“ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION (BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MODES) GOAL: IMPROVE, ENHANCE, AND EXPAND THE REGION’S BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN SYSTEMS AND CONNECTIVITY TO THOSE SYSTEMS, WHILE KEEPING THEM SAFE AND CONVENIENT.
Objective: Encourage bicycle usage in Tulare County by providing safe and convenient bike routes and facilities as outlined in the Tulare County Regional Transportation Bicycle Plan, and coordinate pedestrian planning with bicycle planning countywide.
Policies:
1. Update the Regional Bicycle Plan every four years to identify bicycle routes that are appropriate for commuter, recreational, and student riders.
2. Convene public outreach and implement strategies for Share the Road concepts.
3. Designate and design regional bicycle and pedestrian routes that reduce conflicts with motor vehicles.
4. Encourage local agency review of bicycling and pedestrian needs with all new development.
5. Encourage local agencies to support implementation of bicycle support facilities such as bike racks, showers, and other facilities during the project review process.
6. Coordinate bicycle and pedestrian planning and implementation with other modes of transportation, particularly with transit.
7. Support development of designated regional bicycle and/or walking paths adjacent to or separate from commute corridors, connecting cities and communities.
8. Support implementation of local bicycle, pedestrian, and trail plans.
9. Utilize Cap and Trade funds available for bicycle and pedestrian projects, if available, for projects in Tulare County.” (see STCETRMP, page 6)
3-184
Chapter 2 Policies of the STCETRMP contain numerous policies that address the Roads System, Tribal Transit System, Bicycle System, Pedestrian System, Multi-Use Trail System and Greenhouse Gases. The policies interact and complement each other to provide sustainability.
As noted in Chapter 2: Policies of the STCETRMP, “Given the Tribe’s Planning Vision Statement and their historic relationship with the environment, the development of this plan is by nature, sustainable. The Tribe does recognize the value of planning for the future and the benefits attained through the development of long range policies to support sustainability. With plans to develop within the Reservation as well as pursuing off-Reservation economic opportunities, the Tribe is committed to the integration of land use, transport, economics and the environment into the decision making process and project execution.
The following policy statements were developed to support this multi-modal approach to Tribal sustainability. They are timeless and as such will need to be reviewed and refined as opportunities arise. They are intended to support the Sustainable Transportation Plan’s Goal and the Tribe’s planning vision of consideration of three generations in the future. They should be reviewed on a regular basis and refined as the system matures.” (see STCETRMP, page 22).
For the purposes of this Project, the Bicycle System, Pedestrian System, Multi-Use Trail System, and Greenhouse Gas[es] policies would apply:
“Bicycle System
CP 3.1 Bicycle System
The Tule River Indian Tribe shall develop the transportation system to support commuter and recreational bicycle usage. Focus will be on the rural nature of the road system and the need for school bike trips and opportunities for recreational biking within the Reservation.
CP 3.2 Regional Bicycle Transportation Plan
The Tule River Indian Tribe County shall coordinate with TCAG and other agencies to integrate the Reservation bike facilities into the regional network. This effort shall include updating and possibly including Tule River Indian Tribe’s improvement projects into the Tulare County Regional Bicycle Transportation Plan.
CP 3.3 Provisions for Bicycle Use
The Tule River Indian Tribe shall provide for bicycle use through the development of Reservation roads with a minimum of 4 foot shoulders, bike lanes (where appropriate) and multi-modal trails. Bike lockers and supporting signage and striping shall be placed at activity centers.
CP 3.4 Provisions for Bicycle Use
The Tule River Indian Tribe will implement a bike safety program with emphasis on school children and drivers.
CP 3.5 Provisions for Bicycle Use
3-185
Along with the bike safety program, the Tule River Indian Tribe will implement a community awareness program to educate Tribal members on the health and environmental benefits of cycling and the availability of the bike system and support facilities.
Pedestrian System
CP 4.1 Sidewalk Facilities
The Tule River Indian Tribe shall support pedestrian activity through the development of sidewalks in activity centers and new developments. Sidewalks shall be developed to provide for all-weather movements and be a minimum of 5 feet in width. Location should reflect the terrain, available road width and pedestrian and vehicle safety.
CP 4.2 Road Shoulders
Because of the rural nature of the Reservation, the road system represents a significant part of the pedestrian system. The Tule River Indian Tribe shall improve pedestrian mobility by development of the Reservation road shoulders to support better pedestrian movement.
CP 4.3 Focus Areas
The Tule River Indian Tribe shall develop a sidewalk system within the Governments Center to support the pedestrian activity associated with the Education Center, the Medical Center, the Government Center and the future Cultural Center. This pedestrian system shall include crosswalks and traffic calming facilities.
Multi-Use Trail System
CP 5.1 Multi-use Trails
The Tule River Indian Tribe shall develop multi-use corridors composed of hiking, equestrian, biking and pedestrians.
CP 5.1 Tule River Trail
A multi-use trail along the Tule River corridor shall form the backbone of the trail system. Other trails shall be developed to provide access to the Specific Plan areas and the Reservation back country.
CP 5.2 Horse and Hiking Trails
The Tule River Indian Tribe shall also support the development of a horse and hiking trail system, which provides access to the activity centers within the Reservation along with open space in the back country.
Greenhouse Gas[es]
CP 6.1 Global Warming Solutions (AB 32)
3-186
The Tule River Indian Tribe will support the goals of AB 32, through the implementation of this Sustainable Transportation/Circulation Element.
CP 6.2 Greenhouse Gas Reduction
The Tule River Tribe supports the legislative goal to reduce or encourage reductions in GHG emissions by at least 15%.
CP 6.3 Sustainable Communities Strategy/Regional Blueprint Planning The Tribe will support the Tulare County Sustainable Communities Strategy through the implementation of this sustainable transportation program and the development of sustainable land use plans.” (STCETRMP, pages 23-24).
Discussion
a) Would the Project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? No Impact: As noted earlier, the nature of the Project can be summarized as pedestrian safety enhancements and pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, and paths that encourage active walking and cycling. As such, the Project does not conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
Rather, as noted earlier, the Tribe has numerous policies that encourage and support development and the use of a multi-modal approach that includes pedestrian and cycling.
Therefore, the Project would result in no impact to this resource.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
b) Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b)?
No Impact: As noted earlier, the nature of the Project can be summarized as pedestrian safety enhancements and pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, and paths that encourage active walking and cycling. Senate Bill (SB) 743 requires that relevant CEQA analysis of transportation impacts be conducted using a metric known as vehicle miles traveled (VMT) instead of Level of Service (LOS). VMT measures how much actual auto travel (additional miles driven) a proposed project would create on California roads. Using information contained in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, the Project has been screened out from requiring a detailed VMT analysis based on the findings that the Project would not increase vehicle miles traveled (VMT) due to increases in residential, office, and retail uses that tend to have the greatest influence on VMT; would include the addition of new or enhanced bike or pedestrian facilities on existing streets/highways or within existing public rights-of-way; 3-187
and would include the addition of Class I bike paths, trails, multi-use paths, or other off-road facilities that serve nonmotorized travel. (see of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December 28, 2018), pages 14 and 18 at: https://lci.ca.gov/docs/20180416- 743_Technical_Advisory_4.16.18.pdf). Rather, as noted earlier, the Project would develop and encourage the use of a multi-modal approach that includes pedestrian and cycling with enhanced safety components. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, the Project’s impact on VMT would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
c) Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
No Impact: As noted earlier, the nature of the Project can be summarized as pedestrian safety enhancements and pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, and paths that encourage active walking and cycling with enhanced safety components (e.g., sidewalks, signage, crosswalks, striping, etc.). As such, the proposed Project does not include any features that could result in increased hazards due to a geometric design feature. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, the Project would result in no impact.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
d) Wouldthe Project result ininadequate emergencyaccess? No Impact: As noted earlier, the nature of the Project can be summarized as pedestrian safety enhancements and pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, and paths that encourage active walking and cycling with enhanced safety components (e.g., sidewalks, signage, crosswalks, striping, etc.). During construction-related activities it is possible that traffic management could result in short-term, temporary, and intermittent minor delays; however, emergency access for first responders would be prioritized to allow quick and safe passage to emergency vehicles. As such, the Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Based on the analysis and information provided herein, no mitigation measures are required.
Cumulative Impact
3-188
The cumulative area is limited to the Tule River Reservation. As noted earlier, the nature of the Project can be summarized as pedestrian safety enhancements and pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, and paths that encourage active walking and cycling. As such, the Project would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities; it would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b); it would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses; and it would not result in inadequate emergency access. Also noted earlier, the Project would develop and encourage the use of a multi-modal approach that includes pedestrian and cycling with enhanced safety components. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to the Transportation resource and there would be no cumulative impacts associated with the Project.
3-189
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the Project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in Public
Resources Code section 21074 as either a
Site, feature, place, cultural landscape
that is geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American
tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical resources as
defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
ii. A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision
I of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.
In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision(c) of Public Resource Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource
to a California Native American tribe.
Environmental Setting
A response for sacred lands file search from the NAHC for the Study Area was requested received by the City of Porterville on January 20, 2026 and by qualified consultant Soar Enviornmental Consulting (Soar) on February 24, 2026. The City of Porterville (City) notified the tribal representatives about the proposed Project and requested information regarding potential resources at or near the Project area. One (1) tribal response was received during the consultation process. Also, per AB 52, the City initiated Tribal Consultation on March 9, 2026; at the time of release of this document one (1) response has been received. It is noted that the 3-190
Tribe is working closely with the City (as the lead agency) and consultant Soar Environmental to ensure a thorough and accurate tribal cultural resources assessment.
Cultural Resources Record Search and Native American Consultation As indicated earlier at resource discussion V Cultural Resources, the Central California Information Center (Information Center or CCIC), California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), Department of Anthropology – California State University, Stanislaus conducted a review of their maps for the specific project area and the immediate vicinity of the project area of the following:
California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI)
California Historical Landmarks (CHL)
California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR)
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
Historic maps (U.S. Geological Survey topographic quadrangles, General Land Office plats)
Historical aerial imagery
Caltrans Historical Bridge Inventory
The records search identified eight prior cultural resources investigations within the Project area. These investigations primarily involved cultural and historic property evaluations of the Tule River Indian reservation, utility line replacement, and fire management surveys.” (CRA page 20).
Prehistoric or historic resources within the immediate vicinity of the project area: None has been formally reported to the Information Center.
Also, the NAHC Sacred Lands File search were positive indicating there is a known presence of Tribal resources (see Appendix C). It is noted that NAHC results do not specify the location of tribal cultural resources, and consultation with local tribes was recommended. As noted earlier, the Tribe will be directly involved to ensure their resources are protected to their satisfaction.
Tribal Consultation
In compliance with AB 52, as noted earlier, the City did receive one (1) response from Native American tribes that were contacted during the AB52 consultation process as of the release date of this document. Seven (7) Tribes and ten (10) persons were invited to participate in Tribal Consultation via letters on March 9, 2026, inviting the Tribes to consult with the City regarding the Project. A copy of each letter is available in Appendix C to this report. As of April 18, 2026, one (1) response or requests for consultation was received.
Regulatory Setting
3-191
See discussion at Item V Cultural Resources for a more detailed discussion as Tribal Cultural Resources are included in the discussion.
Federal
American Indian Religious Freedom Act
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act establishes, as national policy, that traditional Native American practices; beliefs; sites, including the right of access; and the use of sacred objects shall be protected and preserved. It does not include provisions for compliance.
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 protects Native American remains, including Native American graves on federal and tribal lands, and recognizes tribal authority over the treatment of unmarked graves. This Act prohibits the selling of Native American remains and provides guidelines for the return of Native American human remains and cultural objects from any collection receiving federal funding, such as museums, universities, or governments. Noncompliance with this Act can result in civil and criminal penalties State
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
CEQA was passed in 1970 to institute a statewide policy of environmental protection. It requires that public agencies that finance or approve public or private projects must consider the impacts of their actions on the environment, of which, Historical Resources, Unique Archaeological Resources, and Tribal Cultural Resources are a part. A project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Historical Resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment (PRC 21084.1). Section 21083.2 requires agencies to determine whether proposed projects would have effects on Unique Archaeological Resources, and Section 21074(a)(1) concerns effects to Tribal Cultural Resources.
CEQA requires that if a project would result in significant impacts on cultural resources that are important or significant, alternative plans or measures must be considered to lessen or mitigate such impacts. Prior to the development of mitigation measures, the importance of cultural resources must be determined. The steps that are generally taken in a cultural resources investigation for CEQA compliance are as follows:
▪ Identify cultural resources in a project area;
▪ If cultural resources exist in the footprint of a project, evaluate the significance of resources;
3-192
▪ If significant resources are determined to exist, evaluate the potential impacts of a project on these resources; and
▪ Develop and implement measures to mitigate the impacts of the project only on significant resources, namely Historical Resources, Unique Archaeological Resources, and Tribal Cultural Resources
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b) and CEQA Section 15064.5 Section 7050.5(b) of the California Health and Safety Code specifies protocol when human remains are discovered during activities involving ground disturbance. If human remains are discovered or identified in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there should be no further disturbance or excavation nearby until the county coroner has determined the area is not a crime scene that warrants further investigation into the cause of death and made recommendations to the persons responsible for the work in the manner provided in PRC Section 5097.98. This section provides guidance for proceeding when human remains associated with Native American burials and associated items are encountered.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) requires that excavation activities stop whenever human remains are uncovered during a project or activity, and that the county coroner be called in to assess the remains. If the county coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be contacted within 24 hours. At that time, the lead agency must consult with the appropriate Native American descendants, if any, as identified by the NAHC. Under certain circumstances, the lead agency (or applicant), is required to develop an agreement with the Native American descendants for the treatment and disposition of the remains
Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.9
PRC Section 5097.9 states that no public agency or private party on public property shall interfere with the free expression or exercise of Native American religion. The code further states that: …nor shall any such agency or party cause severe or irreparable damage to any Native American sanctified cemetery, place of worship, religious or ceremonial site, or sacred shrine located on public property, except on a clear and convincing showing that the public interest and necessity so require. County and city lands are exempt from this provision, expect for parklands larger than 100 acres.
Government Code Section 65352.3-5 (Senate Bill 18)
California Government Code Section 65352.3-5, formerly known as Senate Bill (SB) 18, states that prior to the adoption or amendment of a city or county’s general plan, or specific plans, the city or county shall consult with California Native American tribes that are on the contact list maintained by the NAHC. The intent of this legislation is to preserve or mitigate impacts on places, features, and objects, as defined in PRC 5097.9 and PRC 5097.993, that are within the 3-193
city or county’s jurisdiction. The bill also states that the city or county shall protect the confidentiality of information concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of those places, features, and objects identified by Native American consultation. Government Code 65362.3-5 applies to all general and specific plans and amendments proposed after March 1, 2005. The SB 18 process was completed during preparation of the Porterville General Plan Update 2042 and its accompanying EIR; however, the SB 18 process does not apply to this Project.
Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52)
Effective July 1, 2015, AB 52 amended CEQA to require that: (1) a lead agency provide notice to those California Native American tribes that requested notice of projects proposed by the lead agency; and (2) the lead agency consult with any tribe that responded to the project notice within 30 days of receipt with a request for consultation. Topics that may be addressed during consultation include Tribal Cultural Resources, the potential significance of project impacts, the type of environmental document that should be prepared, and possible mitigation measures and project alternatives.
A California Native American tribe is defined as “…a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC for the purposes of Chapter 905 of the Statutes of 2004.” This includes both federally and non-federally recognized tribes.
Section 21074(a) of the PRC defines Tribal Cultural Resources for the purpose of CEQA as:
1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
A. Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.
B. Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.
2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1.
In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Because criteria 1) A and 1) B also meet the definition of a Historical Resource under CEQA, a Tribal Cultural Resource may also require additional consideration as a Historical Resource.
Tribal Cultural Resources may or may not exhibit archaeological, cultural, or physical indicators. Recognizing that California tribes are experts in their Tribal Cultural Resources and heritage, AB 52 requires that CEQA lead agencies provide tribes that request notification an opportunity to consult at the commencement of the CEQA process to identify Tribal Cultural Resources. Furthermore, because a significant effect on a Tribal Cultural Resource is 3-194
considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA, consultation is used to develop appropriate avoidance, impact minimization, and mitigation measures Native American Human Remains
State law (California PRC §5097 et seq.) addresses the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction; establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project; and established the NAHC.
In the event that Native American human remains, or related cultural material, are encountered, §15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines (as incorporated from PRC §5097.98) and California Health and Safety Code, §7050.5, define the subsequent protocol. In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, excavation or other disturbances shall be suspended on the site, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains or related material. Protocol requires that the County Coroner or Countyapproved Coroner be contacted in order to determine if the remains are of Native American origin. Should the coroner determine the remains to be Native American, the coroner must contact the NAHC within 24 hours. The most likely descendant may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work for means of treating, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any associated grave goods as provided in California PRC §5097.98 (14 CCR 15064.5(e))(State of California, 2021).
Native American Reservation Cultural Resource Laws and Federal, State, and Local Laws Federal, state, and local cultural resource laws can apply to Native American tribal reservations, though their application, scope, and enforcement vary significantly due to tribal sovereignty and the complex interplay of jurisdictions. Certain federal laws specifically protect tribal cultural resources and apply directly to reservations or tribal lands. Key examples include the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), which governs the protection, repatriation, and handling of Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and items of cultural patrimony—particularly on federal or tribal lands—and the Indian Arts and Crafts Act, which safeguards authentic Native American arts and crafts from misrepresentation.
Other federal statutes, such as aspects of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) or Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), may involve tribal consultation for projects affecting cultural sites, even on tribal lands, especially when federal involvement (e.g., funding, permits, or undertakings) is present. However, enforcement of these laws can be inconsistent, and no single, comprehensive federal framework fully guarantees the long-term preservation and vitality of tribal cultures. State laws may have limited applicability on reservations because tribes generally are not subject to state jurisdiction due to their sovereign status. The relationship is further complicated by dual citizenship: tribal members are citizens of both their 3-195
tribe and the United States, subjecting them to federal (and sometimes state) laws alongside tribal ones. This creates a layered system of rights and obligations that tribes, federal agencies, and others may not always fully navigate. In limited areas, such as criminal matters, federal law can incorporate state provisions—for instance, under the Assimilative Crimes Act, certain state criminal violations become federal offenses on reservations. Yet this does not mean all federal (or state) laws automatically extend to every aspect of reservation life or tribal governance.
The fundamental dynamic is a government-to-government relationship between the United States and each federally recognized tribe, with each tribe maintaining its own sovereign legal system and authority. Not every federal law applies uniformly across all reservations. To navigate this effectively, federal agencies, state entities, and local authorities must recognize the unique legal status of reservations, honor tribal sovereignty, and respect tribal traditions.
This includes meaningful government-to-government consultation—incorporating tribal input and perspectives—especially for projects or decisions that could affect historic properties, sacred sites, or other cultural resources (Governor’s Office of Tribal Affairs, 2026).
Regional/Local
The Tule River Indian Tribe would be responsible for tribal cultural resources and the method/manner on how discovery of all tribal resources would be curated, preserved, or otherwise handled.
Discussion
It is noted that the following discussion is limited to tribal cultural resources. However, overall with other cultural resources (e.g., historical resources) can occur. As such, both the Tribal Cultural and Cultural resources are invariably interconnected. Rather than being repetitive, the reader is encouraged to cross-reference these resources as applicable, a) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a Site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i.Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, nor is it listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources. Based on the results of the records search, no previously recorded cultural resources are located within the Project Site. As noted 3-196
earlier, AB52 Tribal Consultation letters were sent out by the City via certified mail on month/day, 2026; as of month/day, 2026, __ responses were received during the Tribal consultation process (see Appendix C). Although cultural resources were identified, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through and CUL-3 would address potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, the Project would result in a less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measures: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
Based on the analysis and information provided herein, implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through and CUL-3 as specified in Item V Cultural Resources, would mitigate impacts to less than significant.
ii.A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Mitigation Measures for Tribal Cultural Resources, see CUL-1 through CUL-3 The City, as lead agency, has determined there are known tribal cultural resources located within the Project site or area. Additionally, there are known human remains buried within the Project area’s vicinity, including internment of Native Americans. It is possible that discovery of previously unknown tribal cultural resources could occur. As such, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-3 would also address potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-3 would mitigate impacts to less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts: Less than Significant with Mitigation.
The cumulative impact area is limited to lands within the Tule River Indian Tribe reservation area. The impacts of development of the proposed Project on tribal cultural resources would be site specific, and cumulative impacts would occur when a series of actions leads to the loss of a substantial type of site or other tribal cultural resource. As previously discussed, impacts to tribal cultural resources (and historical resources, archaeological resources, and human remains) identified within the areas of potential development in the MND Study Area would be less than significant. Existing federal, state, and Tribal laws, regulations, goals, policies, and/or actions described in this resource Item would protect tribal cultural resources in the Project area (specifically, within the Tule River Indian Tribe Reservation). Continued compliance with these regulations substantially decreases potential impacts to tribal cultural resources (and historical resources, archaeological resources, and human remains) to the maximum extent practicable. As such, based on the analysis and information provided herein, the Project would 3-197
result in a less than significant impact with mitigation measures that would be implemented as applicable.
3-198
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the Project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the Project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
Project’s Projected demand in addition
to the provider’s existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of
State or local standards, or in excess of
the capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with Federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Environmental Setting
As noted previously, the Project is entirely within the Tule River Reservations. As noted earlier, the Project is predominantly surrounded by a mix of existing public uses such as the Justice Center, Elders Center, Fire Department, Public Works Department and scattered residential uses to the south; and Tribal Administration, Housing Authority, Health Center, Gymnasium, an Elementary School, Day Care Facility, and scattered residential uses to the north. The Project’s length is located near the Village area where Tribe members can access the uses noted earlier. Scattered urban-type uses as described earlier are generally adjacent to Indian Reservation Drive north of 3-199
the river (where the majority of the Project will occur). The Project also includes areas along South Reservation Road south of the river (see Figure 2-3) where the proposed Project site is along a naturally formed valley of the South Fork of the Tule River (Tule River). Generally, the topography of this area is relatively uneven-to-relatively flat adjacent to the river, with hillsides rising east of Indian Reservation Drive. Areas within approximately 0.25 miles of the Project site include scattered residences spread within hills. Generally, the undeveloped hillsides of the Sierra Nevada Mountains dominate the immediate surrounding areas. In summary, this resource discussion describes and analyzes the potential impacts to the utilities and service system; specifically, water supply, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, water supply, landfill capacity, and solid waste disposal, as applicable. However, as previously noted, the nature of the Project can be summarized as pedestrian safety enhancements and pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, and paths that encourage active walking and cycling.
Water
The Tule River Tribe produces its water supply from groundwater and from flows from the Tule river which are then purified. The Tribe distributes it to its residential, commercial, and institutional customers. As noted in the Tribe’s July 2025 News website, “PWD [Public Works Department] operates and maintains 2 separate water systems: The Main Water System; Tule River main: PWSID 0906005047 and Apple Valley Water system; Tule River Apple Valley (PWSID 090605074). Both systems contain miles of underground piping, water wells, pumps, tanks and service connections. The three systems service the Community Adminstrative offices, the Judicial Building, the Health Clinic, the School and Day Care. The daily demand is 200,000 gallons per day”. (Vol. 06 Newsletter, page 6 at: https://tulerivertribe-nsn.gov/news/#) However, as noted previously, the nature of the Project can be summarized as pedestrian safety enhancements and pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, and paths that encourage active walking and cycling. As such, it is noted that the Project would not use any of the local water supply.
Sewer Collection System/Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) The Tribe operates and maintains the sewer collection system and wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). As noted in the Tribe’s Public Works Department website (see: https://tulerivertribensn.gov/departments/publicworks/), “Our Water Technicians Repair the Water Distribution Systems which consists of several miles of underground pipeline, several water storage tanks, and all service line connections, our WTP and WWTP are checked several times daily to ensure water quality and distribution flows, the quality of our water from the treatment plant and wells are tested as directed by the EPA by our State certified Water Technicians. Samples are taken to BSK and Porterville Laboratories to ensure water quality, these results are then sent to EPA for review. Our operators Maintain and Operate the Communities 70,000 Gal. Per Day WWTP Located on Chimney Road, as well as the 33,000-35,000 Gal. Per Day WWTP which is adjacent to the [former] Casino.” However, as noted previously, the nature of the Project can be summarized as pedestrian safety enhancements and pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, and 3-200
paths that encourage active walking and cycling. As such, it is noted that the Project would not generate any sewerage or require wastewater treatment.
Solid Waste
Solid Waste Disposal and Waste Reduction program
As noted in the Tribe’s Environmental Department’s website, “At the community solid waste transfer station we promote waste reduction with the recycling of glass, plastic, cardboard, office paper and newspaper. We promote proper waste disposal of various hazardous waste items that should not be deposited into landfills. The Tribal community plays an active role in recycling as we provide amenities for waste reduction at community events, gatherings, and various government offices.” (see: https://tulerivertribe-nsn.gov/enviromental/). However, as noted previously, the nature of the Project can be summarized as pedestrian safety enhancements and pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, and paths that encourage active walking and cycling. As such, it is noted that the Project would not generate any solid outside of typical constructionrelated waste for this type of project.
Electric Power: Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity to the Tule River Reservation. However, as noted previously, the nature of the Project can be summarized as pedestrian safety enhancements and pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, and paths that encourage active walking and cycling. As such, it is noted that the Project would not use any electric power outside of typical construction-related needs.
Regulatory Setting
Drinking Water
Federal
Federal Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act, the principal federal law intended to ensure safe drinking water to the public, was enacted in 1974 and has been amended several times since it came into law.
This Act authorizes the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to set national standards for drinking water, called the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, to protect against both naturally occurring and man-made contaminants. These standards set enforceable maximum contaminant levels in drinking water and require all water providers in the United States to treat water to remove contaminants, except for private wells serving fewer than 25 people. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) conducts most enforcement activities. If a water system does not meet standards, it is the water supplier’s responsibility to notify its customers.
3-201
America’s Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA) of 2018
AWIA, signed into law on October 23, 2018, authorizes federal funding for water infrastructure projects, expands water storage capabilities, assists local communities in complying with the Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act (CWA), reduces flooding risks for rural, western, and coastal communities, and addresses significant water infrastructure needs in tribal communities. AWIA requires that drinking water systems that serve more than 3,300 people develop or update risk assessments and emergency response plans (ERPs). Risk assessments and ERPs must be certified by the USEPA within the deadline specified by the AWIA. However, as the Tule River Reservation has less than 3,300 people, the AWIA does not apply.
State
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act (Water Code sections 13000 et seq.), passed in California in 1969 and amended in 2013, is the basic water quality control law for California. Under this Act the SWRCB has authority over State water rights and water quality policy. This Act divided the State into nine regional basins, each under the jurisdiction of a Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to oversee water quality on a day-to-day basis at the local and regional levels.
RWQCBs engage in various water quality functions in their respective regions and regulate all pollutant or nuisance discharges that may affect either surface water or groundwater.
California Senate Bills (SBs) 610 and 221
SBs 610 and SB 221 were amended in 2001 to assure coordination between the local water and land use decisions to confirm that California cities and communities are provided with an adequate water supply. Specific projects are required to prepare a Water Supply Assessment (WSA). The WSA is composed of information regarding existing and forecasted water demands, as well as information pertaining to available water supplies for the new development. The Tule River Tribe does not meet the housing, business, commercial, hotel, industrial, or mixed-use hotel thresholds required to prepare a WSA:
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014
On September 16, 2014, a three-bill legislative package was signed into law, composed of AB 1739, SB 1168, and SB 1319, collectively known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The Governor’s signing message states “a central feature of these bills is the recognition that groundwater management in California is best accomplished locally.” Under SGMA, in groundwater basins that are designated as medium and high priority, local public agencies and groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) must assess conditions in their local groundwater basins and then prepare groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs). As noted in the Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainability Plan (ETGSA), “There is no significant presence of tribal 3-202
lands within the ETGSA. However, the reservation of the Tule River Tribe of California (Tule River Tribe) resides in the Sierra Nevada foothills northeast of the ETGSA and the Tule River Tribe does maintain and own several land holdings and facilities within ETGSA.” (ETGSA, Section 2.4.4 Tribal Lands within Plan Area, page 2-4 at:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Oit9kye2D8Hvp2LBQsVQaITor7Pttdwv/view).
California Plumbing Code
The California Plumbing Code was adopted as part of the California Building Code (CBC) and specifies technical standards of design, materials, workmanship, and maintenance for plumbing systems. The CBC is updated on a three-year cycle; the latest edition is dated 2022.
One of the purposes of the plumbing code is to prevent conflicting plumbing codes within local jurisdictions. Among many topics covered in the code are water fixtures, potable and nonpotable water systems, and recycled water systems.
Regional/Local
None that apply to the Project.
Wastewater
Federal
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 regulates the discharge of pollutants into watersheds throughout the nation and is implemented by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Under the CWA, the USEPA sets wastewater standards and made it unlawful to discharge pollutants from a point source to any navigable waters without obtaining a permit. Point sources include any conveyances, such as pipes and man-made drainage channels, from which pollutants may be discharged.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) The NPDES permit program was established as part of the CWA to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters of the United States. Federal NPDES permit regulations have been established for broad categories of discharges, including point source municipal waste discharges and nonpoint-source stormwater runoff. NPDES permits generally identify effluent and receiving water limits on allowable connections and/or mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge; prohibitions on discharges not specifically allowed under the permit; and provisions that describe required actions by the discharger, including industrial pretreatment, pollution prevention, self-monitoring, and other activities. Wastewater discharge is regulated under the NPDES permit program for direct discharges into receiving 3-203
waters and by the National Pretreatment Program for indirect discharges to a sewage treatment plant.
State
State Water Resources Control Board In California (SWRCB) The SWRCB is responsible for developing statewide water quality policy and exercises the powers delegated to the State by the federal government under the CWA. The Waste Discharge Requirements require public agencies that own or operate sanitary sewer systems to develop and implement Sewer System Management Plans (SSMPs) and report all SSOs to the SWRCB’s online reporting system. The SWRCB has delegated authority to nine Regional WQCBs (RWQCB) to enforce these requirements within their regions.
Sanitary District Act of 1923
The Sanitary District Act of 1923 (Health and Safety Code Section 6400 et seq.) authorizes the formation of sanitation districts and enables the sanitation districts to construct, operate, and maintain facilities for the collection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater Local
As noted earlier, the Tribe operates and maintains the sewer collection system and wastewater treatment plant (WWTP).
Stormwater
The regulatory framework for stormwater is described in detail in Item X, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this document. The regulatory requirements that solely apply to storm drain systems are repeated below
Federal
None that apply to the Project.
State
State Water Resources Control Board General Construction Permit Construction activities that disturb one or more acres of land that could impact hydrologic resources must comply with the requirements of the SWRCB Construction General Permit (Order 2009-0009-DWQ), as amended by Order 2010-0014-DWQ and Order 2012-006-DWQ.
Under the terms of the permit, applicants must file Permit Registration Documents (PRDs) with 3-204
the SWRCB prior to the start of construction. The PRDs include a notice of intent, risk assessment, site map, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), annual fee, and a signed certification statement.
Applicants must also demonstrate conformance with applicable best management practices (BMPs) and prepare a SWPPP containing a site map that shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, stormwater collection, and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the project site. The SWPPP must list BMPs that would be implemented to prevent soil erosion and discharge of other construction-related pollutants that could contaminate nearby water resources. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program, a chemical monitoring program for nonvisible pollutants if there is a failure of the BMPs, and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment. Some sites also currently require implementation of a Rain Event Action Plan. A new Construction General Permit is expected to be issued by the SWRCB in July 2022.
Regional/Local
None that apply to the Project.
Solid Waste
Federal
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations), Part 258, contains regulations for municipal solid waste landfills and requires states to implement their own permitting programs incorporating the federal landfill criteria.
The federal regulations address the location, operation, design (liners, leachate collection, runoff control, etc.), groundwater monitoring, and closure of landfills.
State
Sanitary District Act of 1923
The Sanitary District Act of 1923 (Health and Safety Code Section 6400 et seq.) authorizes the formation of sanitation districts and enforces the sanitation districts to construct, operate, and maintain facilities for the collection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater. This Act was amended in 1949 to allow the sanitation districts to also provide solid waste management and disposal services, including refuse transfer and resource recovery.
Local
3-205
As noted earlier, the Tribe operates a community solid waste transfer station where it promotes waste reduction with the recycling of glass, plastic, cardboard, office paper and newspaper and promotes proper waste disposal of various hazardous waste items that should not be deposited into landfills.
Discussion
a) Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
No Impact: As noted earlier, the nature of the Project can be summarized as pedestrian safety enhancements and pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, and paths that encourage active walking and cycling. As such, the Project will not require the extension of existing utility services into the Project area, including water, wastewater, stormwater drainage, electric power, and telecommunications connections.
Best management practices (BMPs), such as erosion control measures and proper waste management, will be implemented during construction-related activities to reduce potential environmental impacts. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, there would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
b) Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? No Impact: As noted earlier, the nature of the Project can be summarized as pedestrian safety enhancements and pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, and paths that encourage active walking and cycling. As such, the Project would not lower the aquifer's groundwater table or interfere with its recharge processes as the Project would not impact water availability or supply. Therefore, there would be no impact on water resources.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
c) Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s Projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 3-206
Less Than Significant Impact: As noted earlier, the nature of the Project can be summarized as pedestrian safety enhancements and pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, and paths that encourage active walking and cycling. As noted earlier, the Tribe has its own wastewater treatment capabilities; however, the Project would not need to connect to the Tribe’s current wastewater collection or treatment system. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, the impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
d) Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
No Impact: As noted earlier, the nature of the Project can be summarized as pedestrian safety enhancements and pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, and paths that encourage active walking and cycling. Also as noted earlier, the Tribe manages its own solid waste transfer station were they promote waste reduction with the recycling of glass, plastic, cardboard, office paper and newspaper. The Tribe also promotes proper waste disposal of various hazardous waste items that should not be deposited into landfills. It is noted that the Project would not generate any solid outside of typical construction-related waste for this type of project. Accordingly, the Project will comply with all applicable solid waste reduction statutes and regulations, including implementing recycling programs and encouraging waste reduction practices among residents. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, there would be no impact.
e) Would the Project comply with Federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact. As previously discussed, the nature of the Project can be summarized as pedestrian safety enhancements and pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, and paths that encourage active walking and cycling. As noted earlier, the Project would not generate any solid outside of typical construction-related waste for this type of project. Any waste generated by construction-related activities would cease upon completion of the Project. As such, it is unlikely that the Project would generate waste that would not allow it to comply with Federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, the Project would result in no impact to this resource.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Based on the analysis and information provided herein, no mitigation measures are required. 3-207
Cumulative Impact: Less Than Significant
The cumulative area includes both regional and local areas. As noted earlier, the nature of the Project can be summarized as pedestrian safety enhancements and pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, and paths that encourage active walking and cycling. The Project would not impact water availability or supply; it would not impact wastewater collection or treatment; it would not impact stormwater collection or disposal; and it would not impact solid waste. As such, the Project would result in no cumulative impact.
3-208
XX. WILDFIRE
Iflocated in or near state responsibility
areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose Project occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance
of associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power
lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate
fire risk or that may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
Environmental Setting
The Project is entirely within the Tule River Reservations. As noted earlier, the Project is predominantly surrounded by Tribal Administration, Housing Authority, Health Center, Gymnasium, School, Day Care Facility, and scattered residential uses to the north and a mix of existing public uses such as the Justice Center, Elders Center, Fire Department, Public Works Department and scattered residential uses to the south. The Project’s length is located near the Village where Tribe members can access the uses noted earlier. Scattered urban-type uses as described earlier are generally adjacent to Indian Reservation Drive north of the river (where the majority of the Project will occur). The Project also includes areas along South Reservation Road south of the river (see Figure 2-3) where the proposed Project site is along a naturally formed valley of the South Fork of the Tule River (Tule River). Generally, the topography of this area is generally uneven adjacent to the river (with some areas leveled to accommodates structure), with hillsides rising east of Indian Reservation Drive. Areas within approximately 0.25 miles of the Project site include scattered residences spread within hills. Generally, the 3-209
undeveloped hillsides of the Sierra Nevada Mountains dominate the immediate surrounding areas. The entire Tule River Reservation lies within a Federal Responsibility Area; as such, it is outside of CalFire jurisdiction.
Regulatory Framework
Federal
Federal responsibility areas (FRA) include lands administered by the following Federal Agencies: The United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, The United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Bureau of Land Management.
Division of Forestry and Wildland Fire Management
The Division of Forestry and Wildland Fire Management (DFWFM) oversees the National Indian Forestry and Wildland Fire Management Program which is an effort between the U.S.
Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and other federal agencies and tribal governments.5 The Tule River Tribe and Reservation is a federally recognized tribe of Native Americans located on the eastern side of Tulare County. The Tule River Fire Department supports fire protection services within the Reservation. (Tule River Fire Department website at:
http://fire.tulerivertribe-nsn.gov/).
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000)
As noted in Appendix H of the Tulare County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJ-LHMP), “Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, also commonly known as “The 2000 Stafford Act Amendments”, constitutes an effort by the Federal government to reduce the rising cost of disasters by stressing the importance of mitigation planning and disaster preparedness prior to an event. Mitigation Planning Section 322 of the Act requires local governments to develop, submit, and update hazard mitigation plans every five years in order to qualify for Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) grant program funds. The County and associated jurisdictions including the Tule River Tribe must have an approved hazard mitigation plan pursuant to §201.6 in order to receive FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) project grants or to receive HMA funding.” (MJ-LHMP, page H-1)
State
California Building Code (CBC)
The CBC, contained in Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, identifies building design standards, including those for fire safety. Typical fire safety requirements of the CBC 3-210
include the installation of fire sprinklers in all new high-rise buildings; the establishment of fire resistance standards for fire doors, building materials, and particular types of construction; and clearance of debris and vegetation within a prescribed distance from occupied structures in wildfire hazard areas.
California Fire Code (CFC)
The CFC incorporates, by adoption, the International Fire Code of the International Code Council, with California amendments. The CFC includes provisions and standards for emergency planning and preparedness, fire service features, fire protection systems, hazardous materials, fire flow requirements, and fire hydrant locations and distribution. Typical fire safety requirements include installation of sprinklers in all high-rise buildings; the establishment of fire resistance standards for fire doors, building materials, and particular types of construction; and the clearance of debris and vegetation within a prescribed distance from occupied structures in wildfire hazard areas.
The California Disaster Assistance Act of 2006 (AB 2140) “In October 2006, the California State Legislature passed AB 2140 – the California Disaster Assistance Act - which went into effect January 1, 2007. AB 2140 limits the state’s share of funding for disaster recovery projects to 75% of the recovery costs unless a local jurisdiction has complied with the legislation by incorporating a local hazard mitigation plan as part of the safety element of the general plan, at which point up to 100% of the recovery costs may be covered by the State. By incorporating the MJLHMP by reference into the Safety Element of the General Plan, the County will be considered eligible for the increased State share of public assistance reimbursement for disaster recovery projects.”(MJ-LHMP, page H-1 and H-2).” As a participant in the Tulare County MJ-LHMP, the Tule River Tribe is eligible for funding from this source.
Regional
Tulare County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJ-LHMP) The MJ-LHMP, adopted in 2018 and updated in 2023, includes hazard mitigation goals, strategies, and priorities, and provides a comprehensive assessment of the area’s hazards and vulnerabilities. The MJ-LHMP is a guide to hazard mitigation throughout Tulare County and serves as a tool to help decision makers direct hazard mitigation activities and resources. In the context of the MJ-LHMP, mitigation is an action that reduces or eliminates long-term risk to people and property from hazards, including those occurring naturally and those caused by humans such as wildfire.
3-211
As noted in the MJ-LHMP, “The updated MJHMP complies with FEMA guidance and California OES guidelines for MJ-LHMPs. The update followed the requirements noted in the DMA of 2000 and FEMA 2013 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Handbook.
This [2023] MJ-LHMP update involved a comprehensive review and update of each section of the 2018 MJ-LHMP, the integration of a detailed risk assessment and consequence analysis, and an assessment of the progress in evaluating, monitoring, and implementing the mitigation strategy outlined in the initial plan. The planning process provided an opportunity to review jurisdictional priorities related to hazard significance and mitigation actions, and revisions were made where applicable to the base plan. Another change in priority was the desire to engage the eight incorporated jurisdictions in the County, including annexes for the municipalities of Dinuba, Exeter, Farmersville, Lindsay, Porterville, Tulare, Visalia, Woodlake, Tule River Tribe, and the Tulare County Office of Education. While each jurisdiction participated in pervious MJ[-L]HMP updates, representatives from multiple departments representing a Local Planning Team were engaged and involved in the development of the 2023 MJ-LHMP through multiple planning workshops and numerous one-on-one work sessions (see Chapter for more information) Only the information and data still valid from the 2018 plan was carried forward as applicable into this MJ-LHMP update. The 2018 MJ-LHMP Prerequisite section was integrated into the Executive Summary of the 2023 MJ-LHMP update. Also, given the eight municipalities and the Tule River Tribe, and the Office of Education participation, significant new hazard informant was integrated into the base plan and into each annex. The 2018 MJ-LHMP assessed 14 priority hazards, including dam failure, earthquake, flooding, landslide, and wildfire. The 2023 MJ-LHMP update assessed 11 natural, human-caused, and human health hazards, including agricultural pests and disease, aquatic invasive species (AIS), cyber threats, and dam [failure].” (MJHMP, page 2-21)
In addition to the Tule River Tribe, the MJ-LHMP notes, “In the 2023 MJ-LHMP update, the following jurisdictions participated in the planning process and will be adopting the updated plan following FEMA approval. All incorporated cities in the County participated in this planning process. The individual school districts and several special districts are new to the multijurisdictional planning process.
Lead Jurisdiction: Tulare County
Municipalities: Cities of Dinuba; Exeter; Farmersville; Lindsay; Porterville; Tulare; Visalia; and Woodlake.
Tribe: Tule River Tribe.” (see MJLHMP, pages 2-23 and 2-24) Discussion
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
3-212
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact: . As noted earlier, the nature of the Project can be summarized as pedestrian safety enhancements and pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, and paths that encourage active walking and cycling. The Project is not located within a state responsibility area or on land classified as very high fire hazard severity zone as defined by the Cal Fire. The entire Tule River Reservation is located within a federal hazard area. Moreover, the nature of the Project would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, there would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
b)Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the Project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No Impact: As noted earlier, the nature of the Project can be summarized as pedestrian safety enhancements and pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, and paths that encourage active walking and cycling. result The Project is not located within a state responsibility area or on land classified as very high fire hazard severity zone as defined by the Cal Fire. The entire Tule River Reservation is located within a federal hazard area. The nature of the Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks and expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, there would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No Impact: As noted earlier, the nature of the Project can be summarized as pedestrian safety enhancements and pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, and paths that encourage active walking and cycling. result The Project is not located within a state responsibility area or on land classified as very high fire hazard severity zone as defined by the Cal Fire. The entire Tule River Reservation is located within a federal hazard area. As such, the nature of the Project would not the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities). Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, there would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
3-213
d)Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire instability, or drainage changes? No Impact: As noted earlier, the nature of the Project can be summarized as pedestrian safety enhancements and pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, and paths that encourage active walking and cycling. result The Project is not located within a state responsibility area or on land classified as very high fire hazard severity zone as defined by the Cal Fire. The entire Tule River Reservation is located within a federal hazard area. As such, the nature of the would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire instability, or drainage changes. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, there would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Based on the analysis and information provided herein, no mitigation measures are required.
Cumulative Impact: No Impact
The cumulative area is limited to the Tule River Reservation. As noted earlier, the nature of the Project can be summarized as pedestrian safety enhancements using pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, paths, signage, etc.). As such, based on the analysis and information provided herein, cumulative wildfire-related impacts would result in no impact. 3-214
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the Project have the potential
substantially to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the Project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a
Project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past Projects,
the effects of other current Projects, and
the effects of probable future Projects)?
c) Does the Project have environmental
effects, which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Discussion
a) Does the Project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce thenumber or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: The Initial Study found the Project could potentially significantly impact on Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils 3-215
(Paleontological Resources), and Tribal Cultural Resources. However, with the implementation of previously identified Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through and CUL-3; and GEO-1 (for paleontological resources); each respective potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Accordingly, the Project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. No additional mitigation measures are required as impacts would be less than significant with previously identified mitigation measures incorporated.
b) Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a Project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past Projects, the effects of other current Projects, and the effects of probable future Projects)? Less Than Significant Impact: State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h) states that a lead agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a project is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects. Due to the nature of the Project and consistency with environmental policies, incremental contributions to impacts are considered less than cumulatively considerable. The proposed Project would not contribute substantially to adverse cumulative conditions, or create any substantial indirect impacts (i.e., an increase in population could lead to an increased need for housing, an increase in traffic, air pollutants, etc.). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c) Does the Project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects onhuman beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact: The analyses of environmental issues contained in this above Initial Study indicate that the Project is not expected to have a substantial impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Mitigation measures have been incorporated in the Project design to reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant, which results in a less than significant impact on this checklist item. 3-216
3.6 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
As required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, subd. (a)(1), a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the Tule River Tribe Complete Streets and Two Pedestrian Bridges Project to monitor the implementation of the mitigation measures that have been adopted for the Project. This MMRP has been created based upon the findings of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The first column of the table identifies the mitigation measure. The second column names the party responsible for carrying out the required action. The third column identifies the timing of initiating the mitigation measure. The fourth column names the party ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented. The last column will be used by the City of Porterville (and the Tule River Tribe) to ensure that the individual mitigation measures have been monitored.
Mitigation Measure
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure 4.1a (Protocol-level Surveys). Prior to the start of bridge construction, or any other project activity in the river corridor, protocol-level rare plant surveys will be conducted within the associated work areas. The surveys will be conducted when local populations of the target species are in bloom, as determined through visits to reference populations and/or consultation with local botanists. The general blooming windows are April-May for the roseflowered larkspur, March-May for the calico monkeyflower, and March-April for the Munz’s iris
Project Applicant Prior to ground
disturbance
City of
Porterville
(City) and
Tule River
Tribe (TRT)
Mitigation Measure BIO-4.1b (Avoidance). Any individuals or populations of the rose-flowered larkspur, calico
monkeyflower, or Munz’s iris found during the surveys will be avoided by project activities to the maximum extent feasible.
A qualified biologist will identify an appropriate constructionfree zone around populations to be avoided. Constructionfree zones will be delineated on the ground with temporary construction fencing and maintained for the duration of project activities.
Project Applicant Prior to ground
disturbance CITY/TRT
Mitigation Measure BIO-4.1c (Salvage and Relocation). If it is not feasible to avoid some or all of any rose-flowered larkspur, calico monkeyflower, or Munz’s iris individuals or populations found on site, those plants that cannot be avoided will be salvaged and relocated to alternative habitat by a qualified botanist following the provisions of a salvage, relocation, and monitoring plan. Alternative habitat must be in an area Project Applicant Prior to ground
disturbance
CITY/TRT
3-217
protected from herbicide application, excessive grazing, and other deleterious impacts.
Monarch Butterfly
Mitigation Measure BIO-4.2a (Milkweed Survey). Prior to the start of bridge construction, a qualified biologist will survey the associated work areas for milkweed plants. The survey will be conducted at a time of year when milkweed is readily
identifiable. The objective of the survey will be to tally and map all milkweed plants that could potentially be impacted by project activities.
Project Applicant Prior to
construction CITY/TRT
Mitigation Measure BIO-4.2b (Construction Timing). If
feasible, no milkweed plants will be removed during the period when monarchs are most likely to breed in the project vicinity, March to August.
Project Applicant Prior to
construction CITY/TRT
Mitigation Measure BIO-4.2c (Compensatory Mitigation).
Any milkweed plants that are removed by the project will be replaced at a 3:1 ratio in accordance with a revegetation plan prepared by a qualified biologist. The planting site(s) must be in similar or higher quality habitat to the habitat that was impacted, in area(s) that will not be mowed or treated with pesticides or herbicides.
Project Applicant If plants are
removed
CITY/TRT
Crotch’s bumble bee
Mitigation Measure BIO-4.3a (Construction Timing). If
feasible, all bridge construction activities will take place between October and February, outside of the period in which Crotch’s bumble bee nests are typically active.
Project Applicant
Oct-Feb. when
construction
occurs
CITY/TRT
Mitigation Measure BIO-4.3b (Preconstruction Surveys). If bridge construction must occur between March and
September, then a qualified biologist will conduct
preconstruction surveys for the Crotch’s bumble bee within the associated work areas. To maximize detection, the surveys will be conducted on warm, sunny days (65-90 degrees F) when there is low wind (less than 8 mph).
The surveys will be conducted by walking meandering
transects through the work areas, while visually searching for bumble bees and potential nest sites. Any bumble bees that are observed will be followed and, if possible, photographed once they alight on a plant, highlighting the following features to aid identification:
•Face, including cheek length
•Top of the head
•Banding on the abdomen
•Color pattern on the thorax
At any burrows or other underground features that exhibit concentrated bumble bee activity, the surveyor will monitor activity to determine nesting status.
Project Applicant
Mar.-Sept. when
construction
occurs
CITY/TRT
Mitigation Measure BIO-4.3c (Avoidance). Any suspected
Crotch’s bumble bee nests that are discovered during the surveys will be avoided by an appropriate setback during bridge construction activities, until the biologist determines the nest is no longer active.
Project Applicant During
construction CITY/TRT
Western Pond Turtle
3-218
Mitigation Measure BIO-4.4a (Preconstruction Surveys).
Within 24 hours prior to the start of bridge construction at each location, a qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey for western pond turtles in the associated work area.
Project Applicant Prior to
construction CITY/TRT
Mitigation Measure BIO-4.4b (Relocation). The biologist will capture and relocate any turtles found within the work areas during the surveys. Turtles will be relocated to suitable alternative habitat within the river corridor, well outside of work area boundaries.
Project Applicant Prior to
construction CITY/TRT
Mitigation Measure BIO-4.4c (Employee Education
Program). Prior to the start of bridge construction, workers will receive training on western pond turtle identification and life history and the project-specific measures required for this species’ protection.
Project Applicant Prior to
construction CITY/TRT
Mitigation Measure BIO-4.4d (Site Inspections and Turtle Avoidance/Relocation). During bridge construction,
construction staff will regularly inspect the work area for western pond turtles. At a minimum, this will include (1) checking for turtles under and around any parked vehicles or equipment prior to their operation, (2) scanning the ground for turtles while operating vehicles or equipment, and (3)
checking any open trenches or other excavations for trapped turtles at the beginning and end of each work day.
Project Applicant During
construction CITY/TRT
Mitigation Measure BIO-4.4e (Avoidance). If any turtles are observed on site while work is occurring, work in the
immediate area will cease and turtles will be allowed to leave the construction zone of their own volition, if feasible. If necessary, a qualified biologist will capture and relocate such turtles as described above under Mitigation Measure 4.1.4b.
Project Applicant During
construction CITY/TRT
Northern California Legless Lizard
Mitigation Measure BIO-4.5a (Preconstruction Surveys).
Within 24 hours prior to the start of bridge construction at each location, a qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey for northern California legless lizard in the associated work area. The survey will entail visually searching all terrestrial habitats of the work areas and will include gently raking leaf litter and turning over rocks, logs, and other features that could serve as refugia for individuals of this species.
Project Applicant Prior to
construction CITY/TRT
Mitigation Measure BIO-4.5b (Relocation). The biologist will capture and relocate any legless lizards found within the work areas during the surveys. Lizards will be relocated to suitable alternative habitat within the river corridor, outside of work area boundaries.
Project Applicant Prior to
construction CITY/TRT
Nest Birds and Raptors
Mitigation Measure BIO-4.6a (Construction Timing). If
feasible, the project will be constructed between September 1 and January 31, outside of the avian nesting season.
Project Applicant
Sept.-Mar. when
construction
occurs
CITY/TRT
Mitigation Measure BIO-4.6b (Preconstruction Surveys). If construction is to occur between February 1 and August 31, a qualified biologist will conduct pre-construction surveys for active bird nests within 10 days prior to the start of any work within this period. The survey area will encompass the work Feb 1.-Aug 31.
when
construction
occurs
CITY/TRT
3-219
area(s) and surrounding lands within 500 feet for nesting raptors and 250 feet for other nesting birds.
Mitigation Measure BIO-4.6c (Avoidance of Active Nests).
Should any active nests be discovered in or near proposed construction zones, the biologist will identify a suitable construction-free buffer around the nest. The buffer distance will be determined based on species biology, site-specific conditions, and the level of project-related disturbance that is anticipated near the nest(s) in question. Buffers will be identified on the ground with flagging or fencing and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the young have fledged and are capable of foraging independently.
Project Applicant Prior to
construction CITY/TRT
Tree roosting bats including Pallid Bat
Mitigation Measure BIO-4.7a (Construction Timing). If
feasible, project-related tree removal will occur outside of the period between April 15 and September 30. This is the time frame within which colony-roosting bats in the vicinity generally assemble, give birth, nurse their young, and
ultimately disperse.
Project Applicant
Apr. 15-Sept. 30
Prior to
construction
CITY/TRT
Mitigation Measure BIO-4.7b (Pre-construction Surveys).
Within 10 days prior to the removal of any mature trees, a qualified biologist will survey these features for roosting bats.
The biologist will look for individuals, guano, and staining, and will listen for bat vocalizations. If necessary, the biologist will wait for nighttime emergence of bats from roost sites.
Project Applicant Prior to
construction CITY/TRT
Mitigation Measure BIO-4.7c (Avoidance of Maternity
Roosts). Should any active maternity bat roosts be
discovered, the biologist will identify a suitable constructionfree buffer around the roost(s). The buffer will be identified on the ground with flagging or fencing, and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the nursery is no longer active.
Project Applicant
Prior to and
during
construction
CITY/TRT
Mitigation Measure BIO-4.7d (Humane Eviction of Nonbreeding Bats). If a non-breeding bat colony is found, the individuals will be humanely evicted, under the direction of a qualified biologist, to ensure that bats are not physically harmed by tree removal.
Project Applicant
Prior to and
during
construction
CITY/TRT
Sensitive Natural Communities
Mitigation Measure BIO-4.8a (Tree Survey). Prior to project construction, a qualified biologist will survey all portions of the river corridor that are proposed for direct impact. All trees and shrubs within these areas will be identified to species and mapped, and their diameter at breast height (DBH) will be recorded. At the end of construction, a qualified biologist will repeat the survey to quantify the tree and shrub removal that occurred.
Project Applicant Prior to
construction CITY/TRT
Mitigation Measure BIO-4.8b (Replacement Plantings).
Replacement plantings will be provided as compensation for removal of any riparian trees or shrubs with a DBH of 4 inches or greater. Plantings will be installed at a ratio of 3:1 for impacted trees/shrubs with a DBH between 4 and 24 inches, and at a ratio of 10:1 for impacted trees with a DBH greater than 24 inches. All plantings will be monitored annually for a Project Applicant
Prior to or
during
construction
CITY/TRT
3-220
minimum of five years. A revegetation plan will be prepared for the project that will detail the methods for planting, irrigating, and maintaining the replacement trees and shrubs.
CULTURAL RESOURCES/TRIBAL CULTURAL
Mitigation Measure CUL-1 Cultural Resources Awareness
Training: Before ground-disturbing activities, a qualified archaeologist shall conduct Cultural Resources Awareness Training for all construction personnel. The training shall include examples of potential cultural materials, reporting protocols, penalties for unauthorized disturbance, and
procedures for immediate notification of the archaeologist.
Attendance shall be documented on a sign-in sheet retained by the contractor and provided to the Tule River Indian Reservation and Tulare County upon completion of
construction..
Project Applicant Ongoing During
Construction
Tule River
Tribe
(TRT)/City
of
Porterville
(City)
Mitigation Measure CUL-2 Inadvertent Discovery of
Archaeological Resources: Ground-disturbing activities shall be located at least 100 feet (30 meters) from known
archaeological resources. If resources are discovered, work within 100 feet (30 meters) of the find shall halt immediately, and the area shall be protected from further disturbance. The archaeologist, in consultation with a Native American
representative, shall evaluate the find for significance and recommend treatment consistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C). Avoidance shall be the preferred mitigation; if avoidance is infeasible, data recovery or other appropriate treatment may be implemented. Construction
shall resume only after approval by the qualified
archaeologist.
Project Applicant Ongoing During
Construction TRT/City
MM CUL-3: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains: If
human remains are encountered during construction, all work in the vicinity shall cease. The Tulare County Coroner shall be notified immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the NAHC shall be notified in accordance with PRC Section 5097.98, and a Most Likely Descendant shall be identified. The County and the descendant shall confer to determine appropriate treatment and disposition of the
remains. Construction shall not resume until approved by the County and the qualified archaeologist.
Project Applicant Ongoing During
Construction TRT/City
Mitigation Measure GEO-1 (Paleontological resources): If a suspected unique paleontological resource were to be
discovered during construction of the Project, the following protocol shall be implemented:
• The City of Porterville (City) and Tule River Tribal
Representatives (Tribe) shall be notified of the discovery.
Work shall cease around the find until a qualified
paleontologist meeting the Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology standards has evaluated the find in
accordance with federal, state, and local guidelines. The applicant shall choose the qualified paleontologist subject to the approval of the City and Tribe. If the find is
determined to be a unique resource, such measures may
include avoidance, preservation in place, data recovery Project Applicant Ongoing During
Construction TRT/City
3-221
and associated documentation, or other appropriate
measures. Construction activity may continue unimpeded
in other portions of the Project Site. The City and Tribe shall determine the appropriate and feasible measure(s) that
will be necessary to mitigate impacts, in consideration of the measure(s) recommended by the paleontologist.
Construction in the affected area shall re-commence with the approval of the City and Tribe.
Mitigation Measure HYD-1: Prior to the issuance of any
construction/grading permit and/or the commencement of
any clearing, grading, or excavation, the Applicant shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) for discharge from the Project Site to the California State Water Resources Control Board’s Storm Water Permit Unit and submit a copy of this NOI to the City/Tribe. The City/Tribe shall review the noticing
documentation prior to approval of the grading permit and City monitoring staff shall inspect the Project Site during construction for compliance.
Project Applicant PreConstruction City
Mitigation Measure HYD-2: The Applicant shall require the building contractor to prepare and submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the City 45 days prior to the start of work for approval. The contractor is responsible for understanding the State General Permit and instituting the SWPPP during construction. A SWPPP for site construction shall be developed prior to the initiation of grading and
implemented for all construction activity on the Project Site in excess of one (1) acre, or where the area of disturbance is less than one acre but is part of the Project’s plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres. The SWPPP shall identify potential pollutant sources that may affect the quality of discharges to stormwater and shall include specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control the discharge of material from the site. The following BMPs methods shall include, but would not be limited to:
• Dust control measures to ensure success of all on-site activities to control fugitive dust;
• A routine monitoring plan to ensure success of all on-site erosion and sedimentation control measures;
• Provisional detention basins, straw bales, erosion control blankets, mulching, silt fencing, sand bagging, and soil stabilizers shall be used;
• Soil stockpiles and graded slopes shal be covered after two weeks of inactivity and 24 hours prior to and during extreme weather conditions; and,
• BMPs shall be strictly followed to prevent spills and discharges of pollutants on-site, such as material
storage, trash disposal, construction entrances, etc.
Project Applicant PreConstruction City
Reserved
3-222
3.7 Supporting Information and Sources
California Air Resources Board website accessed at:
https://arb.ca.gov/adam/trends/trends1.php.
California Department of Conservation (DOC), Mining Division at:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?url=https://gis.conservation.c a.gov/server/rest/services/MOL/MOLMines/MapServer&source=sd) California Department of Conservation (DOC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (must query the website to receive information) California Department of Conservation. CA Geological Survey https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/eqzapp/#data_s=id %3AdataSource_4-191d8e6d993-layer-25%3A5083120)
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) Fire Hazard Severity Zones map at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfirepreparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones) California Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC’s) at:
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0332328,-118.8449611,13z?hl=enUS&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYxNy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D) California Energy Commission (CEC’s) 2022 Total System Electric Generation summary (accessed at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/californiaelectricity-data/2022-total-system-electric-generation California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December 28, 2018), pages 14 and 18, at:
https://lci.ca.gov/docs/20180416-743_Technical_Advisory_4.16.18.pdf Caltrans District 6 funded “Recommendation to Improve Pedestrian Safety on the Tule River Indian Reservation” (Sept. 2015) Safe Transportation Research & Education Center (SafeTREC) prepared by Tony Dang, Jaime Fearer, Wendy Alfsen, California Walks; Jill Cooper, UC Berkeley SafeTREC accessed at:
https://safetrec.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/tule-river-cpstrecommendations_final.pdf 3-223
California Transportation Commission, “Active Transportation Program,” MULTIMODAL
SYSTEM ENHANCEMENTS, ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM (BICYCLING AND WALKING), page 63 at: http://www.catc.ca.gov/programs/ATP.htm.
California Transportation Plan (CTP) 2050. Tribal Nations; pages 34 and 35; accessed at: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/transportationplanning/documents/ctp-2050-v3-a11y.pdf County of Tulare. Tulare County General Plan 2030 Update Background Report, pages 8-6 and 8-7 at:
https://generalplan.co.tulare.ca.us/documents/GeneralPlan2010/Appendix%20B%20- %20Background%20Report.pdf)
County of Tulare. Tulare County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJLHMP) at: 2023-Tulare-County-Multi-Jurisdictional-Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan-- Annexes.pdf
County of Tulare. Sequoia Gateway Commerce and Business Park Specific Plan DEIR (SCH No. 2015081056, page. 3.5-3. Prepared by Bert Verrips Environmental Consulting.
September 2018, accessed at: https://tularecounty.ca.gov/rma/projects/planningprojects/applicant-projects/sequoia-gateway-commerce-park/); Certified and adopted by the Tulare County Board of Supervisors December 4, 2018. Resolution No. 2018-0938.
Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainability Plan (ETGSA) Section 2.4.4 Tribal Lands within Plan Area at:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Oit9kye2D8Hvp2LBQsVQaITor7Pttdwv/view, GeoScienceWorld Research Article April 1, 2013; page 193 by John Wakabayashi which can be accessed at:
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geosphere/article/9/2/191/132574/paleochan nels-stream-incision-erosion-topographic).
Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) 2018 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) at:
https://tularecog.org/tcag/planning/rtp/rtp-20181/
Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) 2022 RTP/SCS, pages D-29-30 at:
https://tularecog.org/tcag/planning/rtp/rtp-2022/chapter-d-action-element/ 3-224
Tule River Indian Reservation ATP Plan https://tularecog.org/tcag/planning/activetransportation-planning/tule-river-indian-reservation-atp-plan/ Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG). Active Transportation Planning.
Final Report Sustainable Transportation/Circulation Element for the Tule River Comprehensive Master Plan (STCETRMP), page 16, which can be accessed at:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eHI1QA21_cb2Bgs_WoDP9VeHoVVUX11w/view Tule River Tribe Fire Department at: https://tulerivertribe-nsn.gov/departments/firedeparment/.
Tule River Department of Safety, Tule River Tribal Police at: https://tulerivertribensn.gov/dps-2/.
Tule River Department of Safety, TRTPD Community Service Officer Division at:
https://tulerivertribe-nsn.gov/dps-2/
Tule River Tribe Environmental Department at: https://tulerivertribensn.gov/enviromental/ Tule River Tribe Public Works Department at: https://tulerivertribensn.gov/departments/publicworks/ Tule River Tribe, Towanits School at: https://tulerivertribe-nsn.gov/towanits/ Tule River Tribe TRTC July 2025 News Vol. 06 Newsletter. page https://tulerivertribensn.gov/news/# U.S. Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Information A. Soils Information at:
https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/Delete/2008-8-16/Soil_Feat_Def.pdf.
U.S. Census Bureau (2023), American Community Survey 5-year estimates at:
https://censusreporter.org/profiles/25200US4300R-tule-river-reservation/) U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) of Tule River Indian Reservation, 065066; 06107C1695E6 6/16/2009 at:
https://hazardsfema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879 3-225
338b5529aa9cd&extent=-120.22581757761441,36.77078148069618,- 119.60509003855205,37.04530192606378.
U.S. Energy Information Administration at:
https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA),
U.S. EPA 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment Summary at: https://www.epa.gov/clean-airact-overview/1990-clean-air-act-amendment-summary U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) Federal Highway Administration Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD) standards, sign design details and supporting graphics (accessed at:
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/index.htm)
4-1
City of Porterville
Porterville, CA 93257
SECTION 4: List of Preparers
Project Title:
Tule River Tribe Complete Streets and Two Pedestrian Bridges Project Lead Agency
City of Porterville
Sarah Weaver, Project Manager, Engineering & Project Management Daniel Cervantez, City Engineer, Engineering & Project Management List of Preparers
4Creeks Inc.
Hector Guerra, Senior Environmental Planner
Nate Antepenko, Associate Planner
Grant McNulty, GIS Department Manager
Persons and Agencies Consulted
The following individuals and agencies contributed to this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration:
Tule River Indian Tribe
Neil Peyron, Tribal Council Chairman
John W. Gichuki, PhD, Director of Public Works
Keri Vera, Director, Department of Environmental Protection, Tule River Tribe Wendi Correa, Director, Planning & Community Development, Tule River Tribe Core Environmental Consulting
Health Risk Assessment
Tule Active Transportation Plan Phase I
Tule River Reservation,
291 N Main Street
4-2
Jesse Madsen, Principal Environmental Scientist
Live Oak Associates
TULE RIVER ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN – PHASE 1
BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
Austin Pearson, Vice President
Rebekah Jensen, Senior Project Manager and Ecologist
Soar Environmental Consulting
Cultural Resources Assessment
Tule River Complete Streets Project
Julie Federico, M.A., R.P.A., Archaeologist
Heather Froshour, M.A., R.P.A., Principal Archaeologist Appendix A
HRA and CalEEMod Report
Technical Report
Health Risk Assessment
For California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Project Name:
Tule AcƟve TransportaƟon Plan Phase I
Tule River ReservaƟon, near Porterville, Tulare County, California Prepared for:
4Creeks, Inc.
Visalia, CA
Author:
Core Environmental ConsulƟng
Clovis, CA
Lead Agency:
City of Porterville
Date of PreparaƟon:
March 2026
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK.
Health Risk Assessment March 2026
Tule ATP Phase I
Page i
Contents
1 ExecuƟve Summary ............................................................................................................................... 1 2 Project DescripƟon ................................................................................................................................ 3 3 Health Risk Assessment Seƫng ............................................................................................................ 6
3.1 San Joaquin Valley Air PolluƟon Control District ........................................................................... 6
3.2 Diesel ParƟculate MaƩer (DPM) ................................................................................................... 7
3.3 Ambient Air Quality....................................................................................................................... 8 4 Thresholds of Significance ..................................................................................................................... 9
4.1 HRA Thresholds ............................................................................................................................. 9
4.2 Ambient Air Quality Thresholds .................................................................................................... 9 5 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 11
5.1 HRA Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 11
5.2 AAQA Methodology .................................................................................................................... 12 6 PotenƟal Impacts ................................................................................................................................ 14
6.1 Health Risk Assessment Impacts ................................................................................................. 14
6.2 Ambient Air Quality (AAQA) Impacts .......................................................................................... 14
6.3 Criteria Pollutant Emissions ........................................................................................................ 15
6.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................................................................... 15
6.5 MiƟgaƟon and Project Commitments ......................................................................................... 16 7 References ........................................................................................................................................... 17 Tables
Table 1 SJVPACD Thresholds of Significance – Toxic Air Contaminants ......................................................... 9 Table 2 ConstrucƟon HRA Results Compared to SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance ................................ 14 Table 3 Criteria Pollutant Emissions Compared to SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance (tons per year) ... 15 Table 4 Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons per year) ............................................................ 16 Figures
Figure 1 Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2 Approximate ConstrucƟon Footprints ............................................................................................. 5 Health Risk Assessment March 2026
Tule ATP Phase I
Page ii
Appendices
Appendix A. CalEEMod Results .............................................................................................................. 1 Appendix B. AERMOD and HARP2 ADMRT Results ............................................................................... 1 Health Risk Assessment March 2026
Tule ATP Phase I