SECTION 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Quad Knopf, Inc. (QK) has completed an Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) for the Tentative Tract Map 6497 West Haven II Project (Project). The Project is located northeast of the intersection of South Buttonwillow Avenue and East Springfield Avenue. The project is located on the eastern side of the City of Reedley in Fresno County, CA.
The project proposes the development of 176 single-family lots averaging 5,627 square feet per lot. The project site is located within the City of Reedley’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) and has a planned land use designation of Low Density Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre [du/acre]) and High Density Residential (15-29 du/acre) pursuant to the Reedley 2030 General Plan. The site is zoned Limited Agricultural (AL-20) according to the County of Fresno zoning map. The project proposes to amend the planned land use designation of an approximately 3.5-acre portion of the project site from High Density Residential to Low Density Residential. Additionally, the project proposes to pre-zone the project site and the three rural residential parcels to the northwest, APNs 370-040-13, 370-040-22, and 370- 040-23, to the R-1-6 (One Family Residential) zone district in preparation for annexation of the parcels consistent with the Reedley 2030 General Plan.
The proposed Project’s construction and operations would include the following criteria pollutant emissions: reactive organic gases (ROG), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and suspended particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Project operations would generate air pollutant emissions from mobile (vehicle activity from residents), energy sources (natural gas and electricity usage), and area sources (incidental activities related to architectural coating, consumer products, and landscape maintenance).
Project construction and operational activities would also generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Criteria and GHG emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1.1.29 (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), 2024), which is the most current version of the model approved for use by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD).
Error! Reference source not found. presents the Project’s construction emissions and provides substantial evidence to support a less-than-significant air quality impact on the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB).
Error! Reference source not found. presents the Project’s operations emissions and provides substantial evidence to support a less-than-significant air quality impact on the SJVAB after mitigation.
SJVAPCD uses a single threshold for the determination of significance for both projectspecific and cumulative impacts. As such, a qualitative evaluation of the cumulative projects supports the finding that the Project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable because the proposed Project’s incremental emissions would be less than significant.
Introduction
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
SECTION 2 - INTRODUCTION
2.1 - Purpose
This AQIA was prepared pursuant to the SJVAPCD Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) (SJVAPCD, 2015) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines (CEQA, 2024).
2.2 - General Project Description
The Project is a 34-acre residential development, on the eastern side of the City of Reedley.
The project site is bounded by East Springfield Avenue to the east, a residential subdivision to the south, rural residential homes and East North Avenue to the north, and South Buttonwillow Avenue to the west. The Project is within Section 25, Township 15 South, Range 23 East.
The proposed Project site is currently agriculture. The project proposes the development of 176 single-family lots averaging 5,627 square feet per lot. The project site is located within the City of Reedley’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) and has a planned land use designation of Low Density Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre [du/acre]) and High Density Residential (15-29 du/acre) pursuant to the Reedley 2030 General Plan. The site is zoned Limited Agricultural (AL-20) according to the County of Fresno zoning map. The project proposes to amend the planned land use designation of an approximately 3.5-acre portion of the project site from High Density Residential to Low Density Residential. Additionally, the project proposes to pre-zone the project site and the three rural residential parcels to the northwest, APNs 370-040-13, 370-040-22, and 370-040-23, to the R-1-6 (One Family Residential) zone district in preparation for annexation of the parcels consistent with the Reedley 2030 General Plan. Error! Reference source not found. depicts the regional location and Error! Reference source not found. depicts an aerial view of the Project location.
Error! Reference source not found.3 depicts the Project site’s topography. The Project site is located at an elevation of approximately 350 feet above mean sea level and is surrounded by residential, industrial, and empty parcels.
Introduction
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
Figure 2-1
Regional Location
Introduction
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
Figure 2-2
Project Location
Introduction
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
Figure 2-3
Project Site Topography
Setting
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
SECTION 3 - SETTING
Protection of public health is maintained through the attainment and maintenance of ambient air quality standards for various atmospheric compounds and the enforcement of emissions limits for individual stationary sources. The Federal Clean Air Act requires that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. NAAQS have been established for ozone (O3), CO, NO2, SO2, PM10 and PM2.5, and lead (Pb). California has also adopted ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) for these "criteria" air pollutants. CAAQS are more stringent than the corresponding NAAQS and include standards for hydrogen sulfide (H2S), vinyl chloride (chloroethene), and visibility-reducing particles. The U.S. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 required each state to identify areas that were in non-attainment of the NAAQS and to develop State Implementation Plans (SIPs) containing strategies to bring these non-attainment areas into compliance. NAAQS and CAAQS designation/classification for Fresno County are presented in Section 3.1 below.
Responsibility for the regulation of air quality in California lies with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the 35 local air districts, with oversight responsibility held by the EPA. CARB is responsible for regulating mobile source emissions, establishing CAAQS, conducting research, managing regulation development, and providing oversight and coordination of the activities of the 35 air districts. The air districts are primarily responsible for regulating stationary source emissions and monitoring ambient pollutant concentrations. CARB also determines whether air basins, or portions thereof, are “unclassified,” in “attainment,” or in “non-attainment” for the NAAQS and CAAQS relying on statewide air quality monitoring data.
3.1 - Air Quality Standards
The Project area is located within Fresno County in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB or Basin). Fresno County is included among the eight counties that comprise the SJVAPCD.
The SJVAPCD acts as the regulatory agency for air pollution control in the Basin and is the local agency empowered to regulate air pollutant emissions for the Project area. Table 3-1 provides the NAAQS and CAAQS.
Setting
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
Table 3-1
Federal and California Standards
Pollutant Averaging Time
NAAQS CAAQS
Concentration
O3
8-hour 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3)
a 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3)
1-hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3)
CO
8-hour 9 ppm (10 µg/m3) 9 ppm (10 µg/m3)
1-hour 35 ppm (40 µg/m3) 20 ppm (23 µg/m3)
NO2
Annual Average 53 ppb (100 µg/m3) 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3)
1-Hour 100 ppb (188.68 µg/m3) 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3)
SO2
3-Hour 0.5 ppm (1,300 µg/m3)
24 Hour 0.14 ppm (365 µg/m3) 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3)
1-Hour 75 ppb (196 µg/m3) 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3)
Particulate Matter
(PM10)
Annual Arithmetic
Mean 20 µg/m3
24-Hour 150 µg/m3 50 µg/m3
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
Annual Arithmetic
Mean 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3
24-Hour 35 µg/m3
Sulfates 24-Hour 25 µg/m3
Pbd
Rolling Three-Month
Average 0.15 µg/m3
30 Day Average 1.5 µg/m3
H2S 1-Hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3)
Vinyl Chloride
(chloroethene) 24-Hour 0.010 ppm (26 µg/m3)
Visibility Reducing
particles
8 Hour (1000 to 1800
PST)
b
ppm = parts per
million
ppb = parts per billion
mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic
meter
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic
meter
Source: CARB 2024b
a. On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm
b. In 1989, CARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standards and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are “extinction of 0.23 per kilometer” and “extinction of 0.07 per kilometer” for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.
Under the provisions of the U.S. Clean Air Act, the Fresno County portion of the SJVAB has been classified as non-attainment/extreme, non-attainment/severe, non-attainment, attainment/ unclassified, attainment, or unclassified under the established NAAQS and CAAQS for various criteria pollutants. Table 3-2 provides the SJVAB’s designation and classification based on the various criteria pollutants under both NAAQS and CAAQS.
Setting
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
Table 3-2
SJVAB Attainment Status
Pollutant NAAQSa CAAQSb
Ozone – 1 Hour No Federal Standardf Non-attainment/Severe Ozone – 8 Hour8 Non-attainment/Extremee Non-attainment
PM10 Attainmentc Non-attainment
PM2.5 Non-attainmentd Non-attainment
Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
Lead Particulates No Designation/Classification Attainment H2S No Federal Standard Unclassified
Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment
Visibility Reducing Particulates No Federal Standard Unclassified Vinyl Chloride No Federal Standard Attainment
[Source: SJVAPCD 2025a
Notes:
a. See 40 CFR Part 81
b. See CCR Title 17 Sections 60200-60210
c. On September 25, 2008, EPA redesignated the San Joaquin Valley to attainment for the PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and approved the PM10 Maintenance Plan. d. The Valley is designated non-attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA designated the Valley as non-attainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on November 13, 2009 (effective December 14, 2009). e. Though the Valley was initially classified as serious non-attainment for the 1997 8-hour O3 standard, EPA approved Valley reclassification to extreme non-attainment in the Federal Register on May 5, 2010 (effective June 4, 2010). f. Effective June 15, 2005, the EPA revoked the federal 1-hour O3 standard, including associated designations and classifications. EPA had previously classified the SJVAB as extreme non-attainment for this standard. EPA approved the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan on March 8, 2010 (effective April 7, 2010). Many applicable requirements for extreme 1-hour O3 non-attainment areas continue to apply to the SJVAB.
The SJVACPD, along with CARB, operates an air quality monitoring network that provides average concentrations of those pollutants for which State or federal agencies have established ambient air quality standards. Information from the various monitoring stations is available from the corresponding agency’s websites. A map of the monitoring stations in the SJVAB is provided in Error! Reference source not found. below.
Setting
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
Figure 3-1
CARB Monitoring Network
Setting
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
3.2 - Existing Air Quality
For the purposes of background data and this air quality assessment, this analysis relied on data collected in the last three years for the CARB monitoring stations that are located in closest proximity to the Project site. Error! Reference source not found. provides the background concentrations for O3, particulate matter of 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter of less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), CO, NO2, PB, and H2S as of 2024. Information is provided for the Fresno—Drummond Street, Fresno—Garland, and Clovis—N Villa Ave monitoring stations for 2021 through 2023. No data is available for SO2, Vinyl Chloride, or other toxic air contaminants in the SJVAB.
Table 3-3
Existing Air Quality Monitoring Data in Project Area
Maximum Concentration Days Exceeding Standard
Pollutant and
Monitoring Station Location
2021 2022 2023 2021 2022 2023
O3 – 1-hour CAAQS (0.09 ppm)
Fresno – Drummond Street 0.125 0.111 0.102 9 3 3
Fresno – Garland 0.112 0.096 0.101 6 2 3
Clovis – N Villa Avenue 0.123 0.109 0.102 9 3 3
O3 – 8-hour CAAQS (0.07 ppm)
Fresno – Drummond Street 0.100 0.089 0.088 41 8 24
Fresno – Garland 0.093 0.083 0.084 22 10 17
Clovis – N Villa Avenue 0.100 0.084 0.084 37 26 23
O3 – 8-hour NAAQS (0.070 ppm)
Fresno – Drummond Street 0.099 0.089 0.088 39 8 20
Fresno – Garland 0.093 0.083 0.084 18 10 15
Clovis – N Villa Avenue 0.100 0.084 0.083 34 23 21
PM10 – 24-hour CAAQS (50 µg/m3)
Fresno – Drummond Street 149.8 166.5 130.0 20 133 120
Fresno – Garland 283.3 109.2 107.8 91 73 54
Clovis – N Villa Avenue 208.8 120.0 103.1 111 73 44
PM10 – 24-hour NAAQS (150 µg/m3)
Fresno – Drummond Street 151.8 73.4 131.1 0 0 0
Fresno – Garland 281.0 116.1 109.3 1 0 0
Clovis – N Villa Avenue 125.0 127.0 104.7 0 0 0
PM2.5 - 24-hour NAAQS (35 µg/m3)
Fresno – Garland 99.9 53.3 39.1 30 13 4
Clovis – N Villa Avenue 104.6 41.9 34.7 22 4 0
CO - 8-Hour CAAQS & NAAQS (9.0 ppm)
No data collected * * * * * *
NO2 - 1-Hour CAAQS (0.18 ppm)
Fresno – Drummond Street 0.064 0.058 0.058 0 0 0
Fresno – Garland 0.056 0.054 0.047 0 0 0
Clovis – N Villa Avenue 0.059 0.051 0.047 0 0 0
NO2 - 1-Hour NAAQS (0.10 ppm)
Fresno – Drummond Street 0.0645 0.0583 0.0581 0 0 0
Fresno – Garland 0.0563 0.0547 0.0479 0 0 0
Clovis – N Villa Avenue 0.0494 0.0518 0.0479 0 0 0
SO2 – 24-hour Concentration - CAAQS (0.04 ppm) & NAAQS (0.14 ppm) No data collected * * * * * *
Setting
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
Pb - Maximum 30-Day Concentration CAAQS (1500 ng/m3)
Fresno – Garland 6.8 42 6.5 * * *
Source: CARB 2024
Notes: ppm= parts per million
* There was insufficient (or no) data available to determine the value.
The following describes criteria air pollutants, typical sources, health effects, and recently documented pollutant levels in the Project vicinity.
3.2.1 - OZONE (O3)
The SJVAB has high concentrations of O3, and these high levels are known to cause eye irritation and impair respiratory functions. High levels of O3 can also affect plants and materials. Grapes, lettuce, spinach, and many types of garden flowers and shrubs are particularly vulnerable to O3 damage. O3 is not directly emitted into the atmosphere; it is a secondary pollutant produced from a photochemical interaction between hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides (NOx). One to three hours of strong sunlight in a stable atmosphere creates O3. The “O3 season,” therefore, typically spans from April through October. O3 is a regional pollutant; wind transports and diffuses the precursors while activating the photochemical reaction process. The data presented in Error! Reference source not found. shows that the Project area monitoring stations exceeded the 1-hour average ambient O3 CAAQS and the 8- hour average ambient O3 NAAQS and CAAQS between 2021 through 2023.
3.2.2 - SUSPENDED PARTICULATE MATTER (PM10 AND PM2.5)
Both NAAQS and CAAQS now apply to particulates under 10 microns (PM10). Since the smaller diameter fraction of total suspended particulates is documented to represent the greatest health hazard, EPA has established NAAQS for particulates under 2.5 microns (PM2.5). The Project area is classified as attainment for PM10 and non-attainment for PM2.5 for NAAQS.
Dust and fumes from industrial and agricultural operations generate particulate matter.
Natural activities, such as wind-raised dust, fires, and ocean spray, also increase the level of particulates in the atmosphere. The largest source of PM10 and PM2.5 in Fresno County is vehicle movement over paved and unpaved roads from demolition and construction activities and farming operations. PM10 and PM2.5 are considered regional pollutants, with elevated levels typically occurring over a wide geographic area. Concentrations tend to be highest in the winter, during periods of high atmospheric stability and low wind speed. Very small particulates may contain absorbed gases that produce injury to the respiratory tract.
Particulates of aerosol size suspended in the air can both scatter and absorb sunlight, producing haze and reducing visibility. They can also damage a wide range of materials.
Error! Reference source not found. shows that PM10 levels exceeded the CAAQS, and both PM10 and PM2.5 exceeded the NAAQS in 2021 and 2023, respectively. Similar levels can be expected to occur in the vicinity of the Project site.
Setting
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
3.2.3 - CARBON MONOXIDE (CO)
Ambient CO concentrations normally correspond closely to the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. Relatively high concentrations of CO would be expected along heavily traveled roads and near busy intersections. Wind speed and atmospheric mixing also influence CO concentrations.
Internal combustion engines, principally in vehicles, produce CO due to incomplete fuel combustion. Various industrial processes also produce CO emissions through incomplete combustion. Gasoline-powered motor vehicles are typically the major source of this contaminant. CO does not irritate the respiratory tract but passes through the lungs directly into the bloodstream, and by interfering with the transfer of fresh oxygen to the blood, deprives sensitive tissues of oxygen, thereby aggravating cardiovascular disease, causing fatigue, headaches, and dizziness. CO is not known to have adverse effects on vegetation, visibility, or materials. Error! Reference source not found. reports insufficient data for the CO monitoring at any monitoring stations during the three-year period from 2021 through 2023.
3.2.4 - NITROGEN DIOXIDE (NO2) AND HYDROCARBONS
Fresno County has been designated as an attainment/unclassified area for the NAAQS for NO2. NO2 is the "whiskey brown" colored gas readily visible during periods of heavy air pollution. Mobile sources account for nearly all the County's NOx emissions, most of which are emitted as NO2. Combustion in motor vehicle engines, power plants, refineries, and other industrial operations are the primary sources in the air basin. Railroads and aircraft are other potentially significant sources of combustion air contaminants. Oxides of nitrogen are direct participants in photochemical smog reactions. The emitted compound, nitric oxide, combines with oxygen in the atmosphere in the presence of hydrocarbons and sunlight to form NO2 and O3. NO2, the most significant of these pollutants, can color the atmosphere at concentrations as low as 0.5 ppm on days of 10-mile visibility. NOx is an important air pollutant in the region because it is a primary receptor of ultraviolet light, which initiates the reactions producing photochemical smog. It also reacts in the air to form nitrate particulates.
Motor vehicles are the major source of reactive hydrocarbons in the basin. Other sources include evaporation of organic solvents and petroleum production and refining operations.
Certain hydrocarbons can damage plants by inhibiting growth and by causing flowers and leaves to fall. Levels of hydrocarbons currently measured in urban areas are not known to cause adverse effects in humans. However, certain members of this contaminant group are important components in the reactions which produce photochemical oxidants. Error! Reference source not found. shows that the NO2 NAAQS and CAAQS were not exceeded over the three-year period of 2021 through 2023. Hydrocarbons are not currently monitored.
3.2.5 - SULFUR DIOXIDE
Fresno County has been designated as an attainment/unclassified area for the NAAQS for SO2. SO2 is the primary combustion product of sulfur or sulfur-containing fuels. Fuel Setting
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
combustion is the major source of this pollutant, while chemical plants, sulfur recovery plants, and metal processing facilities are minor contributors. Gaseous fuels (natural gas, propane, etc.) typically have lower percentages of sulfur-containing compounds than liquid fuels such as diesel or crude oil. SO2 levels are generally higher in the winter months.
Decreasing levels of SO2 in the atmosphere reflect the use of natural gas in power plants and boilers.
At high concentrations, SO2 irritates the upper respiratory tract. At lower concentrations, when respirated in combination with particulates, SO2 can result in greater harm by injuring lung tissues. Sulfur oxides (SOx), in combination with moisture and oxygen, result in the formation of sulfuric acid, which can yellow the leaves of plants, dissolve marble, and oxidize iron and steel. SOx can also react to produce sulfates that reduce visibility and sunlight.
Error! Reference source not found. shows no data has been reported over the three-year period.
3.2.6 - LEAD (PB) AND SUSPENDED SULFATE
Ambient Pb levels have dropped dramatically due to the increase in the percentage of motor vehicles that run exclusively on unleaded fuel. Ambient Pb levels in Fresno (the closest monitoring station to the Project) are well below the ambient standard and are expected to continue to decline; the data reported in Error! Reference source not found. only shows the highest concentration as the number of days exceeding standards is not reported. Suspended sulfate levels have stabilized to the point where no excesses of the State standard are expected in any given year.
3.3 - Climate
The most significant single control on the weather pattern of the San Joaquin Valley is the semi-permanent subtropical high-pressure cell, referred to as the "Pacific High." During the summer, the Pacific High is positioned off the coast of northern California, diverting oceanderived storms to the north. Hence, the summer months are virtually rainless. During the winter, the Pacific High moves southward, allowing storms to pass through the San Joaquin Valley. Almost all the precipitation expected during a given year occurs from December through April. During the summer, the predominant surface winds are out of the northwest.
Air enters the Valley through the Carquinez Strait and flows toward the Tehachapi Mountains. This up-valley (northwesterly) wind flow is interrupted in early fall by the emergence of nocturnal, down-valley (southeasterly) winds, which become progressively more predominant as winter approaches. Wind speeds are generally highest during the spring and lightest in fall and winter. The relatively cool air flowing through the Carquinez Strait is warmed on its journey south through the Valley. On reaching the southern end of the Valley, the average high temperature during the summer is nearly 100 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). Relative humidity during the summer is quite low, causing large diurnal temperature variations. Temperatures during the summer often drop into the upper 60s. In winter, the average high temperatures reach into the mid-50s, and the average low drops to the mid-30s. In addition, another high-pressure cell, known as the "Great Basin High," develops east of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range during winter. When this cell is weak, a Setting
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
layer of cool, damp air becomes trapped in the basin, and extensive fog results. During inversions, vertical dispersion is restricted, and pollutant emissions are trapped beneath the inversion and pushed against the mountains, adversely affecting regional air quality.
Surface-based inversions, while shallow and typically short-lived, are present most mornings. Elevated inversions, while less frequent than ground-based inversions, are typically longer lasting and create more severe air stagnation problems. The winter season characteristically has the poorest conditions for vertical mixing of the entire year.
Meteorological data for various monitoring stations is maintained by the Western Regional Climate Center. Meteorological data for the Project site is expected to be similar to the data recorded at the Fresno monitoring station. This data is provided in Table 3-4, which contains average precipitation data recorded at the Fresno monitoring station from January 1948 through June 2016 (the most recent data available at the time this report was prepared).
Table 3-4
Fresno, California Weather Data
Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary for the Period 01/01/1948 to 6/09/2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
Average Max.
Temperature (F) 54.6 61.5 67.0 74.4 83.5 91.7 98.3 96.4 90.8 79.7 65.3 54.7 76.5 Average Min.
Temperature (F) 37.6 40.7 43.8 48.0 54.3 60.5 65.7 64.0 59.7 51.2 42.4 37.3 50.4 Average Total
Precipitation (in.) 2.09 1.90 1.89 1.03 0.36 0.16 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.53 1.13 1.64 10.89 Average Total
SnowFall (in.) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Average Snow
Depth (in.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percent of possible observations for the period of record:
Max. Temp.: 100% Min. Temp.: 100% Precipitation: 100% Snowfall: 91.2% Snow Depth: 91.3% Source: Western Regional Climate Center, 2025.
3.4 - Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases
3.4.1 - GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
“Global climate change” refers to changes in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect to temperature, precipitation, and storms, lasting for decades or longer. The term “global climate change” is often used interchangeably with the term “global warming,” but “global climate change” is preferred by some scientists and policymakers to “global warming” because it helps convey the notion that in addition to rising temperatures, other changes in global climate may occur. Climate change may result from the following influences:
• Natural factors, such as changes in the sun’s intensity or slow changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun.
• Natural processes within the climate system (e.g., changes in ocean circulation).
Setting
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
• Human activities that change the atmosphere’s composition (e.g., through burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g., deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, and desertification).
As determined from worldwide meteorological measurements between 1990 and 2005, the primary observed effect of global climate change has been a rise in the average global tropospheric temperature of 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) per decade. Climate change modeling shows that further warming could occur, which could induce additional changes in the global climate system during the current century. Changes to the global climate system, ecosystems, and the environment of California could include higher sea levels, drier or wetter weather, changes in ocean salinity, changes in wind patterns, or more energetic aspects of extreme weather (e.g., droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, extreme cold, and increased intensity of tropical cyclones). Specific effects from climate change in California may include a decline in the Sierra Nevada snowpack, erosion of California’s coastline, and seawater intrusion in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.
Human activities, including fossil fuel combustion and land use changes, release carbon dioxide (CO2) and other compounds cumulatively termed greenhouse gases. GHGs are effective at trapping radiation that would otherwise escape the atmosphere. This trapped radiation warms the atmosphere, the oceans, and the earth’s surface (USGCRP, 2014). Many scientists believe most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities” (IPCC, 2014). The increased amount of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere is the alleged primary result of human-induced warming.
GHGs are present in the atmosphere naturally, released by natural sources, or formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. They include CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and O3. In the last 200 years, substantial quantities of GHGs have been released into the atmosphere, primarily from fossil fuel combustion. These human-induced emissions are increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, therefore enhancing the natural greenhouse effect. The GHGs resulting from human activity are believed to be causing global climate change. While human-made GHGs include CO2, CH4, and N2O, some (like chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs]) are completely new to the atmosphere. GHGs vary considerably in terms of Global Warming Potential (GWP), the comparative ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere. The GWP is based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas to absorb infrared radiation and the length of time that the gas remains in the atmosphere (“atmospheric lifetime”). The GWP of each gas is measured relative to CO2, the most abundant GHG. The definition of GWP for a particular GHG is the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of the GHG to the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of CO2 over a specified time period. GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of pounds or tons of “CO2 equivalents” (CO2e).
Natural sources of CO2 include the respiration (breathing) of animals and plants and evaporation from the oceans. Together, these natural sources release approximately 150 billion metric tons of CO2 each year, far outweighing the seven billion metric tons of GHG emissions from fossil fuel burning, waste incineration, deforestation, cement manufacturing, and other human activity. Nevertheless, natural GHG removal processes such as Setting
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
photosynthesis cannot keep pace with the additional output of CO2 from human activities.
Consequently, GHGs are building up in the atmosphere (Enviropedia, 2019).
Methane is produced when organic matter decomposes in environments lacking sufficient oxygen. Natural sources of CH4 production include wetlands, termites, and oceans. Human activity accounts for the majority of the approximately 500 million metric tons of CH4 emitted annually. These anthropogenic sources include the mining and burning of fossil fuels, digestive processes in ruminant livestock such as cattle, rice cultivation, and the decomposition of waste in landfills. The major removal process for atmospheric CH4, the chemical breakdown in the atmosphere, cannot keep pace with source emissions; therefore, CH4 concentrations in the atmosphere are rising.
Worldwide emissions of GHGs in 2008 were 30.1 billion metric tons of CO2e and have increased considerably since that time (United Nations, 2011). Emissions from the top five emitting countries (China, the United States, India, the Russian Federation, and Japan) and the European Union accounted for approximately 70 percent of total global GHG emissions in 2014. The United States was the number two producer of GHG emissions, behind China.
The primary GHG emitted by human activities was CO2, representing approximately 80 percent of total GHG emissions (U.S. EPA, 2024).
In 2022, the United States emitted approximately 6,343.2 million metric tons of CO2e.
Between 1990 and 2022, CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion decreased by 1.1 percent; emissions decreased by 18.2 percent (1,044.7 MMT CO2e) from 2005 levels; and from 2021 to 2022, these emissions increased by 1.0 percent (45.1 MMT CO2e). (U.S. EPA, 2024).
Worldwide, energy-related CO2 emissions are expected to increase through 2050.
Projections indicate that resources, demand, and technology costs will drive the shift from fossil to non-fossil energy sources, but current policies are not enough to decrease global energy-sector emissions. This outcome is largely due to population growth, regional economic shifts toward more manufacturing, and increased energy consumption as living standards improve. Globally, we project increases in energy consumption to outpace efficiency improvements. China remains the primary source of energy-related CO2 emissions through 2050 across all cases, although its share of total global CO2 emissions declines.
Further, across all cases we project India to displace the United States and our Other AsiaPacific modeling region to displace Western Europe as the second- and third-highest emitters of energy-related CO2 emissions by 2050, respectively (U.S. EIA, 2023).
CARB is responsible for developing and maintaining the California GHG emissions inventory.
This inventory estimates the amount of GHGs emitted into and removed from the atmosphere by human activities within California and supports the Assembly Bill (AB) 32 Climate Change Program. CARB’s current GHG emission inventory covers the years 2000 through 2017 and is based on fuel use, equipment activity, industrial processes, and other relevant data (e.g., housing, landfill activity, and agricultural lands).
Setting
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
In 2022, emissions from statewide emitting activities were 371.1 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MMT CO2e), which is 9.3 MMT CO2e lower than 2021 levels. 2022 emissions have decreased by 24 percent since peak levels in 2004 and are 59.9 MMT CO2e below the 1990 emissions level and the State’s 2020 GHG limit (CARB 2024a).
CARB estimates that transportation was the source of approximately 39 percent of California’s GHG emissions in 2022, followed by industrial sources at 23 percent. Other sources of GHG emissions were electricity sources at 16 percent, residential plus commercial activities at 14 percent, and agriculture at 8 percent (CARB, 2024a).
CARB has projected statewide GHG emissions for the year 2020, which represent the emissions that would be expected to occur with reductions anticipated from Pavley I and the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) (30 MMT CO2e total), will be 509 MMT of CO2e. GHG emissions from the transportation and electricity sectors as a whole are expected to increase at approximately 36 percent and 20 percent of total CO2e emissions, respectively, as compared to 2009. The industrial sector consists of large stationary sources of GHG emissions, and the percentage of the total 2020 emissions is projected to be 18 percent of total CO2e emissions. The remaining sources of GHG emissions in 2020 are high global warming potential gases at 6 percent, residential and commercial activities at 10 percent, agriculture at 7 percent, and recycling and waste at 2 percent (CARB, 2014).
3.4.2 - EFFECTS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Changes in the global climate are assessed using historical records of temperature changes that have occurred in the past. Climate change scientists use this temperature data to extrapolate a level of statistical significance, specifically focusing on temperature records from the last 150 years (the Industrial Age) that differ from past climate changes in rate and magnitude.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) constructed several emission trajectories of GHGs needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. In its Fifth Assessment Report, the IPCC predicted that the global mean temperature change from 1990 to 2100, could range from 1.1 degree Celsius (°C) to 6.4°C (8 to 10.4°Fahrenheit) (IPCC, 2013). Global average temperatures and sea levels are expected to rise under all scenarios (IPCC, 2014). The IPCC concluded that global climate change was largely the result of human activity, mainly the burning of fossil fuels. However, the scientific literature is not consistent regarding many aspects of climate change, the actual temperature changes during the 20th century, and contributions from human versus non-human activities.
Effects from global climate change may arise from temperature increases, climate-sensitive diseases, extreme weather events, and degradation of air quality. There may be direct temperature effects through increases in average temperature leading to more extreme heat waves and less extreme cold spells. Those living in warmer climates are likely to experience more stress and heat-related problems. Heat-related problems include heat rash and heat stroke, drought, etc. In addition, climate-sensitive diseases may increase, such as those spread by mosquitoes and other disease-carrying insects. Such diseases include malaria, Setting
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
dengue fever, yellow fever, and encephalitis. Extreme events such as flooding and hurricanes can displace people and agriculture. Global warming may also contribute to air quality problems from increased frequency of smog and particulate air pollution.
According to the 2006 California Climate Action Team (CAT) Report, several climate change effects can be expected in California over the course of the next century (CalEPA, 2006).
These are based on trends established by the IPCC and are summarized below. • A diminishing Sierra snowpack declining by 70 percent to 90 percent, threatening the State’s water supply.
• A rise in sea levels, resulting in the displacement of coastal businesses and residences.
During the past century, sea levels along California’s coast have risen about seven inches. If emissions continue unabated and temperatures rise into the higher anticipated warming range, sea level is expected to rise an additional 22 to 35 inches by the end of the century. Sea level rises of this magnitude would inundate coastal areas with salt water, accelerate coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats. (Note: This condition would not affect the proposed Project area, as it is a significant distance away from coastal areas.)
• An increase in temperature and extreme weather events. Climate change is expected to lead to increases in the frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme heat events and heat waves in California. More heat waves can exacerbate chronic disease or heatrelated illness. • Increased risk of large wildfires if rain increases as temperatures rise. Wildfires in the grasslands and chaparral ecosystems of southern California are estimated to increase by approximately 30 percent toward the end of the 21st century because more winter rain will stimulate the growth of more plant fuel available to burn in the fall. In contrast, a hotter, drier climate could promote up to 90 percent more northern California fires by the end of the century by drying out and increasing the flammability of forest vegetation.
• Increasing temperatures from 8 to 10.4°F under the higher emission scenarios, leading to a 25 percent to 35 percent increase in the number of days that ozone pollution levels are exceeded in most urban areas (see below). • Increased vulnerability of forests due to forest fires, pest infestation, and increased temperatures.
• Reductions in the quality and quantity of certain agricultural products. The crops and products likely to be adversely affected include wine grapes, fruit, nuts, and milk. • Exacerbation of air quality problems. If temperatures rise to the medium warming range, there could be 75 to 85 percent more days with weather conducive to ozone formation in Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley, relative to today’s conditions.
This is more than twice the increase expected if rising temperatures remain in the lower warming range. This increase in air quality problems could result in an increase in asthma and other health-related problems.
Setting
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
• A decrease in the health and productivity of California’s forests. Climate change can cause an increase in wildfires, an enhanced insect population, and the establishment of non-native species.
• Increased electricity demand, particularly in the hot summer months. • Increased ground-level ozone formation due to higher reaction rates of ozone precursors.
3.4.3 - GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE REGULATORY ISSUES
In 1988, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to evaluate the impacts of global warming and to develop strategies that nations could implement to curtail global climate change. In 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change established an agreement with the goal of controlling GHG emissions, including methane. As a result, the Climate Change Action Plan was developed to address the reduction of GHGs in the United States. The plan consists of more than 50 voluntary programs. Additionally, the Montreal Protocol was originally signed in 1987 and substantially amended in 1990 and 1992. Pursuant to the Montreal Protocol, the production and consumption of compounds that deplete O3 in the stratosphere (chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs], halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform) were phased out by 2000 (methyl chloroform was phased out by 2005).
On September 27, 2006, Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (the Act), was enacted by the State of California. The legislature stated, “Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California.” The Act caps California’s GHG emissions at 1990 levels by 2020. The Act defines GHG emissions as all of the following gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. This agreement represents the first enforceable statewide program in the U.S. to cap all GHG emissions from major industries that include penalties for non-compliance. While acknowledging that national and international actions will be necessary to fully address the issue of global warming, AB 32 lays out a program to inventory and reduce GHG emissions in California and from power generation facilities located outside the State that serve California residents and businesses. According to CARB, California has met its 2020 GHG emission reduction target (CARB, 2021).
Subsequent legislation by the California legislature has included Senate Bill (SB) 32, which expanded on AB 32 to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below the 1990 levels by 2030; AB 197, which increased the legislative oversight of the CARB by adding two legislatively appointed non-voting members to the CARB Board and provided additional protection to disadvantaged communities; SB 350, which increased California’s renewable energy electricity procurement goal; and SB 100, which established a landmark policy requiring renewable energy and zero-carbon resources to supply 100 percent of electrical retail sales to end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve State agencies by 2045.
Setting
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
Global warming and climate change have received substantial public attention for more than 20 years. For example, the United States Global Change Research Program was established by the Global Change Research Act of 1990 to enhance the understanding of natural and human-induced changes in the Earth’s global environmental system, to monitor, understand, and predict global change, and to provide a sound scientific basis for national and international decision-making. Even so, the analytical tools have not been developed to determine the effect on global warming from a particular increase in GHG emissions, or the resulting effects on climate change in a particular locale. The scientific tools needed to evaluate the impacts that a specific project may have on the environment are even further in the future.
The California Supreme Court’s most recent CEQA decision on the Newhall Ranch development case, Center for Biological v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (November 30, 2015, Case No. 217763), determined that the project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) did not substantiate the conclusion that the GHG cumulative impacts would be less than significant. The EIR determined that the Newhall Ranch development project would reduce GHG emissions by 31 percent from business as usual (BAU). This reduction was compared to California’s target of reducing GHG emissions statewide by 29 percent from business as usual. The Court determined that “the EIR’s deficiency stems from taking a quantitative comparison method developed by the Scoping Plan as a measure of the greenhouse gas reduction effort required by the State as a whole, and attempting to use that method, without adjustments, for a purpose very different from its original design.” In the Court’s final ruling, it offered suggestions that were deemed appropriate use of the BAU methodology:
1. Lead agencies can use the comparison to BAU methodology if they determine what reduction a particular project must achieve in order to comply with statewide goals.
2. Project design features that comply with regulations to reduce emissions may demonstrate that those components of emissions are less than significant.
3. Lead agencies could also demonstrate compliance with locally adopted climate plans or apply specific numerical thresholds developed by some local agencies.
Neither the City of Reedley nor Fresno County have developed specific thresholds for GHGs.
As discussed in Section 4.1, the SJVAPCD, a CEQA Trustee Agency for this Project, has developed thresholds to determine the significance of a proposed project – either implement Best Performance Standards or achieve a 29 percent reduction from BAU (a specific numerical threshold). However, the SJVAPCD has established their BAU and baseline emissions based on the years 2002-2004 and 2020, respectively. The 2020 projected baseline has passed, and at this time, no new guidance has been approved for determining BAU and projected baseline for the next target year. Therefore, the 29 percent reduction from BAU cannot be applied to the subject Project in order to determine significance.
Additionally, a Best Performance Standards threshold has not been established. For this Project, compliance with locally adopted climate plans will be used to determine the level of significance of GHG. Therefore, the GHG analysis for this Project follows the suggestions from the Court’s ruling on the Newhall Ranch development project in order to determine the significance of using the Project design features.
Impact Assessment
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
SECTION 4 - IMPACT ASSESSMENT
4.1 - Significance Criteria
To determine whether a proposed Project could create a potential CEQA impact, local, State, and federal agencies have developed various means by which a project’s impacts may be measured and evaluated. Such means can generally be categorized as follows:
• Thresholds of significance adopted by air quality agencies to guide lead agencies in their evaluation of air quality impacts under the CEQA. • Regulations established by air districts, CARB, and EPA for the evaluation of stationary sources when applying for Authorities to Construct, Permits to Operate, and other permit program requirements (e.g., New Source Review). • Thresholds utilized to determine if a project would cause or contribute significantly to violations of the ambient air quality standards or other concentration-based limits. • Regulations applied in areas where severe air quality problems exist.
Below are summary tables of these emission-based and concentration-based thresholds of significance for each pollutant, along with a discussion of their applicability.
4.1.1 - THRESHOLDS ADOPTED FOR THE EVALUATION OF AIR QUALITY IMPACTS UNDER CEQA In order to maintain consistency with CEQA, the SJVAPCD (2015) adopted guidelines to assist applicants in complying with the various requirements. According to the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI, a project would have potentially significant air quality impacts when the project:
• Creates a conflict with or obstructs implementation of the applicable air quality plan. • Causes a violation of any air quality standard or generates substantial contribution towards exceeding an existing or projected air quality standard. • Results in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is designated non-attainment under a NAAQS and CAAQS (including emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for O3 precursors). • Exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. • Creates objectionable odors that affect a substantial number of people.
The SJVAPCD GAMAQI thresholds are designed to implement the general criteria for air quality emissions as required in the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Paragraph III (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations §15064.7) and CEQA (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et al.). SJVAPCD’s specific CEQA air quality thresholds are presented in Error! Reference source not found..
Impact Assessment
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
Table 4-1
SJVAPCD CEQA Thresholds of Significance
Criteria
Pollutant
Operational Emissions
Construction
Emissions
Permitted Equipment
and Activities
Non-Permitted
Equipment and Activities
NOx 10 tons/yr 10 tons/yr 10 tons/yr
ROG 10 tons/yr 10 tons/yr 10 tons/yr
SOx 27 tons/yr 27 tons/yr 27 tons/yr
PM10 15 tons/yr 15 tons/yr 15 tons/yr
PM2.5 15 tons/yr 15 tons/yr 15 tons/yr
CO 100 tons/yr 100 tons/yr 100 tons/yr
Source: SJVAPCD, 2015.
4.1.2 - THRESHOLD FOR AMBIENT AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
CEQA Guidelines – Appendix G (Environmental Checklist) states that a project that would “violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation” would be considered to create significant impacts on air quality. Therefore, an AQIA should determine whether the emissions from a project would cause or contribute significantly to violations of the NAAQS or CAAQS (presented above in Error! Reference source not found.) when added to existing ambient concentrations.
The EPA has established the federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program to determine what comprises “significant impact levels” (SIL) to NAAQS attainment areas. A project’s impacts are considered less than significant if emissions are below PSD SIL for a particular pollutant. When a SIL is exceeded, an additional “increment analysis” is required.
As the Project would not include modification to the stationary source under New Source Review (NSR), it would not be subject to either PSD or NSR review. The PSD SIL thresholds are used with ambient air quality modeling for a CEQA project to address whether the project would “violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.” Ambient air quality emissions estimates below the PSD SIL thresholds would result in less-than-significant ambient air quality impacts on both a project and cumulative CEQA impact analysis. The SJVAB is classified as non-attainment/marginal for the 8-hour O3 NAAQS and, as such, is subject to non-attainment NSR. PSD SILs and increments are more stringent than the CAAQS or NAAQS and represent the most stringent thresholds of significance.
4.1.3 - THRESHOLDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
The SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI states, “From a health risk perspective, there are basically two types of land use projects that have the potential to cause long-term public health risk impacts:
• Type A Projects: Land use projects that will place new toxic sources in the vicinity of existing receptors.
Impact Assessment
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
• Type B Projects: Land use projects that will place new receptors in the vicinity of existing toxic sources” (SJVAPCD, 2015).
Error! Reference source not found. presents the thresholds of significance used with toxic air contaminants when evaluating hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).
Table 4-2
Measures of Significance – Toxic Air Contaminants
Agency Level Description
Significance Thresholds Adopted for the Evaluation of Impacts Under CEQA
SJVAPCD
Carcinogens Maximally Exposed Individual risk equals or exceeds 20 in one million.
NonCarcinogens
Acute: Hazard Index equals or exceeds 1.0 for the
Maximally Exposed Individual.
Chronic: Hazard Index equals or exceeds 1.0 for
the Maximally Exposed Individual.
Source: SJVAPCD, 2015
4.1.4 - GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE On December 17, 2009, SJVAPCD adopted Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA (SJVAPCD, 2009); which outlined the SJVAPCD’s methodology for assessing a project’s significance for GHGs under CEQA. The following criteria were outlined in the document to determine whether a project could have a significant impact:
• Projects determined to be exempt from the requirements of CEQA would be determined to have a less-than-significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions and would not require further environmental review, including analysis of project-specific GHG emissions. Projects exempt under CEQA would be evaluated consistent with established rules and regulations governing project approval and would not be required to implement BPS.
• Projects complying with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program that avoids or substantially reduces GHG emissions within the geographic area in which the project is located would be determined to have a less-thansignificant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions. Such plans or programs must be specified in law or approved by the lead agency with jurisdiction over the affected resource and supported by a CEQA-compliant environmental review document adopted by the lead agency. Projects complying with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program would not be required to implement BPS.
• Projects implementing Best Performance Standards would not require quantification of project-specific GHG emissions. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines, such projects would be determined to have a less-than-significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions.
Impact Assessment
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
• Projects not implementing Best Performance Standards would require quantification of project-specific GHG emissions and demonstration that project-specific GHG emissions would be reduced or mitigated by at least 29 percent, compared to business as usual (BAU), including GHG emission reductions achieved since the 2002- 2004 baseline period. Projects achieving at least a 29 percent GHG emission reduction compared to BAU would be determined to have a less-than-significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG.
• Notwithstanding any of the above provisions, projects requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for any other reason would require quantification of project-specific GHG emissions. Projects implementing BPS or achieving at least a 29 percent GHG emission reduction compared to BAU would be determined to have a less-than-significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG.
Neither the City of Reedley nor Fresno County have developed specific thresholds for GHGs.
The SJVAPCD, a CEQA Trustee Agency for this Project, has developed thresholds to determine the significance of a proposed project – either implement Best Performance Standards or achieve a 29 percent reduction from BAU (a specific numerical threshold). However, the SJVAPCD has established their BAU and baseline emissions based on the years 2002-2004 and 2020, respectively. The 2020 projected baseline has passed, and at this time, no new guidance has been approved for determining BAU and projected baseline for the next target year. Therefore, the 29 percent reduction from BAU cannot be applied to the subject Project in order to determine significance. Additionally, a Best Performance Standards threshold has not been established. For this Project, compliance with locally adopted climate plans will be used to determine the level of significance for GHG. Therefore, the GHG analysis for this Project follows the suggestions from the Court’s ruling on the Newhall Ranch development project in order to determine the significance of using the project design features.
4.2 - Project Related Emissions
This document was prepared pursuant to the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI. The GAMAQI identifies separate thresholds for a project’s short-term (construction) and long-term (operational) emissions.
Project emissions were estimated separately for each emission source. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) was used to estimate emissions for both short-term, construction-related sources and long-term, operations-related sources.
Project emissions were estimated for the following development stages:
• Short-term (Construction and Demolition) – Construction emissions of the proposed Project were estimated in CalEEMod using the default construction schedule and construction equipment for the development. (See Appendix B.) • Long-term (Operations) – Long-term emissions were also estimated in CalEEMod using model defaults for operations of the aforementioned land use types. (See Appendix B.)
Impact Assessment
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
4.2.1 - SHORT-TERM EMISSIONS
Short-term emissions from the construction phases of a project would have temporary impacts on air quality.
The construction emissions were based on the default CalEEMod equipment list for the proposed Project’s land use type and development intensity and applying model defaults as well as a conservative analysis approach. In order to be conservative construction emissions were estimated under the assumption that construction would begin in 2025. The dates entered into the CalEEMod program represent the earliest construction timeline, which would estimate the worst-case emissions as construction equipment technology and emissions improve over time; therefore, all estimated emission totals are conservative and reflect a reasonable and legally sufficient estimate of potential impacts. All construction equipment activity levels assumed were based CalEEMod default values for type, number of equipment, hours per day and horsepower.
Adjustments to the CalEEMod default values were as follows:
• Land use lot acreage was adjusted to match the Project description. • Demolition construction phase was removed as the Project Location is open land.
SJVAPCD’s required measures for all projects were also applied:
• Water exposed area three times per day.
• Reduce vehicle speed to less than 15 miles per hour on unpaved roads.
Error! Reference source not found. presents the Project’s short-term emissions based on the anticipated construction period.
As calculated with CalEEMod, the estimated short-term construction-related emissions would not exceed SJVAPCD significance threshold levels during any given year and would, therefore, be less than significant.
Impact Assessment
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
Table 4-3
Short-Term Project Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutant (tons/year)
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
2025 0.17 1.53 1.70 0.00 0.24 0.13
2026 0.17 1.35 1.91 0.00 0.10 0.06
2027 1.04 0.83 1.23 0.00 0.06 0.03
Maximum Annual Emission 1.04 1.53 1.91 0.00 0.24 0.13
Significance Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Is Threshold Exceeded for a Single
Year After Mitigation? No No No No No No
Source: QK 2025
4.2.2 - LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Long-term emissions are caused by operational mobile sources and area source emissions from the Project site.
Fugitive Dust Emissions
Operation of the Project site at full build-out is not expected to present a substantial source of fugitive dust (PM10) emissions. The main source of PM10 emissions would be from vehicular traffic associated with the Project site.
PM10, on its own as well as in combination with other pollutants, creates a health hazard. The SJVAPCD’s Regulation VIII establishes required controls to reduce and minimize fugitive dust emissions. The following SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations apply to the proposed Project (and all projects):
• Rule 4102 – Nuisance – prohibits a facility from posing as a nuisance to surrounding receptors and can impose penalties for nuisance issues such as dust, smoke, excess emissions, etc. Compliance with this rule ensures that the area around the Project site will not be adversely impacted by such issues.
• Regulation VIII – Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions – a series of regulations to reduce and/or eliminate the generation of particulate matter (PM) that can adversely impact visibility as well as the health and safety of people on-site or in the vicinity of the Project.
o Rule 8011 – General Requirements – this rule is to reduce ambient concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM10) by requiring actions to prevent, reduce, or mitigate anthropogenic (human-caused) fugitive dust emissions.
o Rule 8021 – Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities – restricts generation of airborne dust and visibility impacts from these activities. Places limits on opacity and equipment operation under certain adverse weather conditions.
Impact Assessment
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
o Rule 8041 – Carryout and Trackout – requires that equipment and vehicles leaving the construction site control the amount of dirt, soil, or mud that is tracked offsite and onto public roadways. This helps eliminate or minimize dust generation and opacity degradation.
o Rule 8051 – Open Areas – limits fugitive dust from open areas, i.e., areas on a construction site that are not actively being constructed upon but may generate wind-blown dust.
The Project would comply with applicable SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations, the local zoning codes, and additional emissions reduction measures recommended later in this analysis, in Section 7, Mitigation and Other Recommended Measures.
Exhaust Emissions
Project-related transportation activities from residents would generate mobile source ROG, NOx, SOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 exhaust emissions. Exhaust emissions would vary substantially from day to day but would average out over the course of an operational year. The variables factored into estimating total Project emissions include: level of activity, site characteristics, weather conditions, and number of visitors. As the Project is not expected to generate an adverse change in current activity levels, substantial emissions are not anticipated. The default trip rates in CalEEMod were used along with an adjusted fleet mix to reflect SJVAPCD approved residential fleet mix for year 2026.
Projected Emissions
The proposed Project is expected to have long-term air quality impacts as shown in Table 4-
4. Emission calculations are available in Appendix B.
Table 4-4
Post-Project Max Year (Operational Emissions)
Emissions Source
Pollutant (tons/year)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Mitigated Emissions
Operational Emissions 2.09 0.88 6.04 0.01 1.04 0.29
SJVAPCD Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Is Threshold Exceeded After Mitigation? No No No No No No As shown in Table 4-4, operations-related emissions, as calculated in Appendix B, would not exceed the SJVAPCD significant threshold levels. Therefore, the Project is less-thansignificant for operational emissions.
4.3 - Potential Impacts on Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors are defined as locations where young children, chronically ill individuals, the elderly, or people who are more sensitive than the general population reside, such as schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and daycare centers. The nearest residential sensitive Impact Assessment
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
receptor to the proposed Project is located adjacent to portions of the Project’s sites. Table 4-5 lists the known non-residential sensitive receptors within one mile of the Project site.
Discussion of health risks and risks to sensitive receptors is addressed in detail below in Section 4.6.
Table 4-5
Sensitive Receptors Located < 1 miles from Project
Receptor Type of Facility
Distance from
Project (miles)
Direction
from Project
Silas Bartsch School School 0.02 E
Grant Middel School School 0.51 W
Monte Vista School School 0.36 SW
Jefferson Elementary School School 0.44 SW
Mountain View School 0.51 W
Lincoln Elementary School School 0.83 W
St. La Salle School School 0.83 NW
Children’s Paradise Daycare Daycare 0.47 W
Fresno EOC Head Start Preschool 0.44 SW
KC Kids Preschool Preschool 0.45 SW
Sierra View Homes Retirement Community 0.26 W
Reedley Elderly Retirement Community 0.71 W
Vineyard Care Center Nursing Home 0.57 SW
United Health Centers Medical Center 0.26 N
Adventist Health Medical Center 0.49 SW
Family Healthcare Medical Center 0.63 NW
4.4 - Potential Impacts to Visibility to Nearby Class 1 Areas Visibility impact analyses are intended for stationary sources of emissions which are subject to the PSD requirements in 40 CFR Part 60; they are not usually conducted for area sources.
Under the PSD program, all international parks, national wilderness areas and national memorial parks that exceed 5,000 acres, and of national parks that exceed 6,000 acres are designated as mandatory federal Class I areas which are provided visibility protection under the Clean Air Act. Because the Project’s PM10 emissions increases are predicted to be less than the PSD threshold levels, an impact at any Class 1 area or military/airspace operation within 100 kilometers of the Project is extremely unlikely. Therefore, based on the Project’s predicted less-than significant PM10 emissions, the Project would be expected to have a less than significant impact to visibility at any Class 1 area or military/airspace operation.
4.5 - Potential Impacts from Carbon Monoxide
Ambient CO concentrations normally correspond closely to the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. Relatively high concentrations of CO would be expected along heavily traveled roads and near busy intersections. CO concentrations are also Impact Assessment
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
influenced by wind speed and atmospheric mixing. CO concentrations may be more uniformly distributed when inversion conditions are prevalent in the valley. Under certain meteorological conditions, CO concentrations along a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels for sensitive receptors, e.g., children, the elderly, hospital patients, etc. This localized impact can result in elevated levels of CO, or “hotspots,” even though concentrations at the closest air quality monitoring station may be below NAAQS and CAAQS.
The localized project impacts depend on whether ambient CO levels in the Project vicinity would be above or below NAAQS. If ambient levels are below the standards, a project is considered to have significant impacts if a project’s emissions would exceed of one or more of these standards. If ambient levels already exceed a State standard, a project’s emissions are considered significant if they would increase 1-hour CO concentrations by 10 ppm or more or 8-hour CO concentrations by 0.45 ppm or more. There are two criteria established by the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI by which CO “hotspot” modeling is required:
1. A traffic study for the project indicates that the Level of Service (LOS) on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity would be reduced to LOS E or F.
2. A traffic study indicates that the project would substantially worsen an already existing LOS F on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity.
A traffic study was completed for this Project (Ruettgers & Schuler, 2025). According to the traffic study, impacted intersections and roadway segments are anticipated to operate at a LOS of C or better. Therefore, CO “hotspot” modeling was not conducted for this Project, and no concentrated excessive CO emissions are expected to be caused once the proposed Project is completed.
4.6 - Predicted Health Impacts
GAMAQI recommends that Lead Agencies consider situations wherein a new or modified source of HAPs is proposed for a location near an existing residential area or other sensitive receptors when evaluating potential impacts related to HAPs.
The proposed Project would result in emissions of HAPs from construction activities and would be located near existing residents; therefore, an assessment of the potential risk to the population attributable to emissions of hazardous air pollutants from the proposed Project is required.
To predict the potential health risk to the population attributable to emissions of HAPs from the proposed Project, ambient air concentrations were predicted with dispersion modeling to arrive at a conservative estimate of increased individual carcinogenic risk that might occur as a result of continuous exposure over the construction period for construction emissions.
Similarly, predicted concentrations were used to calculate non-cancer chronic and acute hazard indices, which are the ratio of expected exposure to acceptable exposure. The basis Impact Assessment
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
for evaluating potential health risks is the identification of sources with increased HAPs. HAP emissions from anticipated on-site construction activities were evaluated.
Health risk is determined using the Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP) software distributed by the CARB. HARP2 requires peak 1-hour emission rates and annualaveraged emission rates for all pollutants for each modeling source. The assumptions used to calculate the emission rates for the proposed Project are outlined below.
The most recent version of EPA’s AMS/EPA Regulatory Model – AERMOD (recompiled for the Lakes ISC-AERMOD View) was used to predict the dispersion of emissions from the proposed Project. The analysis employed all of the regulatory default AERMOD model keyword parameters, including elevated terrain options.
Diesel combustion emissions from diesel on-site construction equipment were modeled as an area source for on-site construction activity on the property. Diesel particulate matter was calculated using CalEEMod for on-site construction. A unit emission rate of one gram/second (g/sec) was input to AERMOD for each source.
A fenceline discrete receptor grid was placed around the Project site in order to evaluate residences and businesses within close proximity of the Project site. A three-tier grid was used with 25-meter fenceline spacing. The first tier extended 100 meters with 25-meter tier spacing, the second tier extended an additional 200 meters with 50 meter tier spacing and the third tier extended another 400 meters with a tier spacing of 100 meters. A total of 1,560 discrete off-site receptors were analyzed. Elevated terrain options were employed even though there is not complex terrain in the Project area. The 7.5-minute DEM terrain data for Reedley, CA, was processed with AERMAP to identify elevations for the proposed Project.
SJVAPCD-provided AERMET processed meteorological datasets for the Fresno monitoring station, calendar years 2018 through 2022 were input to AERMOD (SJVAPCD, 2025d). This was the most recent available dataset available at the time the modeling was conducted.
Rural dispersion parameters were used because the operation and the majority of the land surrounding the facility are considered “rural” under the Auer land use classification method (Auer, 1978).
Plot files generated by AERMOD were uploaded to the Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Assessment Tool (ADMRT) program in the Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program Version 2 (HARP2) (CARB, 2015). ADMRT post-processing was used to assess the potential for excess cancer risk and chronic and acute non-cancer effects using the most recent health effects data from the California EPA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) using the OEHHA Derived Method. HARP2 site parameters were set for the mandatory minimum pathways of inhalation, homegrown gardens, soil ingestion, dermal, and mother’s milk. The non-inhalation pathways used a deposition rate of 0.02 m/s along with all other default parameters. Risk reports were generated using the derived OEHHA analysis method for carcinogenic risk and non-carcinogenic chronic and acute risk. Site parameters are included in the HARP2 output files. Total cancer risk was predicted for the inhalation pathway at each receptor. A hazard index was computed for chronic non-cancer Impact Assessment
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
health effects for each applicable endpoint and each receptor. A hazard index for acute noncancer health effects was not computed since DPM does not have a risk exposure level for acute risk.
SJVAPCD has set the level of significance for carcinogenic risk at twenty in one million, which is understood as the possibility of causing 20 additional cancer cases in a population of one million people. The level of significance for chronic non-cancer risk is a hazard index of 1.0.
All receptors were modeled with a 3-year exposure for construction activities.
The carcinogenic risk and the health hazard index (HI) for chronic non-cancer risk at the point of maximum impact (PMI) do not exceed the significance levels of 20 in one million (20 x 10-6) and 1.0, respectively, for the proposed Project. The PMIs are identified by receptor location and risk and are provided in Table 4-6. The electronic AERMOD and HARP2 output files are provided in Appendix D.
Table 4-6
Potential Maximum Impacts Predicted by HARP
Cancer Risk
Chronic Hazard
Index
Construction 12.3E-06 6.43E-03
SJVAPCD Threshold 20.0E-06 1.0
Exceedance? No No
Receptor # 302 302
UTM Easting (m) 282976.61 282976.61
UTM Northing (m) 4053035.62 4053035.62
Note: UTM = Universal Transverse Mercator
As shown above in Table 4-6, the maximum predicted cancer risk for the proposed Project is 12.3E-06. The maximum chronic non-cancer hazard index for the proposed Project is
6.43E-03. Since the PMI remained below the significance threshold for cancer and chronic risk, this Project would not have an adverse effect to any of the surrounding communities.
The potential health risk attributable to the proposed Project is determined to be less than significant based on the following conclusions:
1. Potential carcinogenic risk from the proposed Project is below the significance level of twenty in a million at each of the modeled receptors.
2. The hazard index for the potential chronic non-cancer risk from the proposed Project is below the significance level of 1.0 at each of the modeled receptors.
3. The hazard index for the potential acute non-cancer risk was not calculated since there is no acute risk associated with DPM emission; therefore, the proposed Project is considered below the significance level.
Therefore, potential risk to the population attributable to emissions of HAPs from the proposed Project would be less than significant.
Impact Assessment
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
4.7 - Potential Impacts from Valley Fever
The proposed project has the potential to generate fugitive dust and suspend Valley Fever spores with the dust that could then reach nearby sensitive receptors. It is possible that onsite workers could be exposed to Valley Fever spores as fugitive dust is generated during construction. In order to mitigate potential risk, the proposed Project would provide training and personal protective respiratory equipment to construction workers and provide information to all construction personnel and visitors about Valley Fever. Therefore, the exposure to Valley Fever would be minimized. With the implementation of the mitigation measures, dust from the construction of the proposed project would not add significantly to the existing exposure level of people to this fungus, including construction workers, and impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.
4.8 - Potential Impacts from Asbestos
Naturally occurring asbestos can be released from serpentinite and ultramafic rocks when the rock is broken or crushed. At the point of release, the asbestos fibers may become airborne, causing air quality and human health hazards. These rocks have been commonly used for unpaved gravel roads, landscaping, fill projects, and other improvement projects in some localities. Asbestos may be released into the atmosphere due to vehicular traffic on unpaved roads, during the grading of development projects, and at mining operations.
Serpentinite and/or ultramafic rocks are known to be present in 44 of California's 58 counties. These rocks are particularly abundant in the counties associated with the Sierra Nevada foothills, the Klamath Mountains, and the Coast Ranges. However, according to information provided by the Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, the project site is not located in an area where naturally occurring asbestos is likely to be present (CDCDMG, 2000). Therefore, impacts associated with the exposure of construction workers and nearby sensitive receptors to asbestos would be less than significant.
4.9 - Odor Impacts and Mitigation
The SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI states, “An analysis of potential odor impacts should be conducted for both of the following two situations:
1. Generators – projects that would potentially generate odorous emissions proposed to locate near existing sensitive receptors or other land uses where people may congregate.
2. Receivers – residential or other sensitive receptor projects or other projects built for the intent of attracting people locating near existing odor sources” (SJVAPCD, 2015).
The GAMAQI also states, “The District has identified some common types of facilities that have been known to produce odors in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. These are presented in Table 6 (Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources), along with a reasonable distance from the source within which the degree of odors could possibly be significant. [Table 6] can be used as a screening tool to qualitatively assess a project’s potential to adversely affect Impact Assessment
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
area receptors” (SJVAPCD, 2015). Because the Project’s anticipated land uses and activities are not listed in Table 6 of the GAMAQI as a source that would create objectionable odors, the Project is not expected to be a source of objectionable odors.
Based on the provisions of the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI, the proposed Project would not exceed any screening trigger levels to be considered a source of objectionable odors or odorous compounds (SJVAPCD, 2015). Furthermore, there does not appear to be any significant source of objectionable odors in close proximity that may adversely impact the Project site when it is in operation. Additionally, the Project emissions estimates indicate that it would not be expected to adversely impact surrounding receptors. As such, the proposed Project would not be a source of any odorous compounds, nor would it likely be impacted by any odorous source.
4.10 - Impacts to Ambient Air Quality
As stated in the GAMAQI (2015, pp 96-97), SJVAPCD has developed screening levels that require an Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA). The SJVAPCD recommends that an AAQA be performed for all criteria pollutants when emissions of any criteria pollutant resulting from project construction or operational activities exceed the 100 pounds per day screening level, after compliance with Rule 9510 requirements and implementation of all enforceable mitigation measures.
Average daily emissions for construction and operational activities associated with this Project would not exceed 100 pounds per day. Therefore, an AAQA is not required for this Project.
4.11 - Impacts to Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
The proposed Project’s construction and operational GHG emissions were estimated using the CalEEMod. The Project’s GHG emissions are primarily from mobile source activities. Not all GHGs exhibit the same ability to induce climate change; as a result, GHG contributions are commonly quantified as CO2e. Table 4-7 presents the Project’s annual GHG emissions.
Table 4-7
Estimated Annual GHG Emissions (MT/Year)
Source CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Total Construction Emissions 874.74 0.03 0.02 880.74
Annualized Construction Emissions
1 29.16 0.00 0.00 29.36
Total Operational Emissions 1,503 1.54 0.06 1,562
Total Project Emissions
1 Per South Coast AQMD’s Methodology
In the decade after SJVAPCD adopted their Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA, several new laws and executive orders were adopted that require additional reductions in years after 2020. For Impact Assessment
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
instance, Senate Bill 32 requires that GHG emissions be 40 percent less than 1990 levels by 2030. More drastic still, Senate Bill 100, which was signed by the Governor recently, requires 100 percent zero-carbon electricity by 2045. On the day SB 100 was signed into law, the Governor also signed Executive Order B-55-18, which commits California to total, economywide carbon neutrality by 2045. Clearly, the 2009 Guidance may be somewhat inadequate in producing a meaningful comparison by today’s standards, which propose a grand vision that, if achieved, would fundamentally change how business is conducted and citizens live in the State. Thus, as discussed in the most recent updates to the Scoping Plan, the objectives of the Scoping Plan affect entire sectors of the economy, and it no longer makes sense to evaluate GHG emissions on a project level.
For these reasons, Project GHG emissions levels presented in Table 4-6 are primarily for disclosure purposes. The Project’s largest contributors to GHG emissions are from electricity and exhaust from transportation fuels. Electricity and transportation fuels are, in effect, regulated by requiring providers and importers of electricity and fuel to participate in the GHG Cap-and-Trade Program and other programs (e.g., low carbon fuel standard, renewable portfolio standard, etc.). Each such sector-wide program exists within the framework of AB 32 and its descendant laws, the purpose of which is to achieve GHG emissions reductions consistent with the AB 32 Scoping Plan.
The Project would generate GHGs from electricity use and combustion of gasoline/diesel fuels, each of which is regulated near the top of the supply chain. As such, each citizen of California (including those creating emissions of this Project) will have no choice but to purchase electricity and fuels produced in a way that is acceptable to the California market.
Thus, Project GHG emissions will be consistent with the relevant plan (i.e., AB 32 Scoping Plan). The Project would meet its fair share of the cost to mitigate the cumulative impact of global climate change because energy purchases are from the California market. Thus, consumers of electricity and transportation fuels are, in effect, regulated by higher-level emissions restrictions on the producers of these energy sources. Therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact on applicable GHG reduction plans and the Project’s contribution to cumulative global climate change impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
Cumulative Impacts
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
SECTION 5 - CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
By its very nature, air pollution has a cumulative impact. The District’s non-attainment status is a result of past and present development within the SJVAB. Furthermore, attainment of ambient air quality standards can be jeopardized by increasing emissions-generating activities in the region. No single project would be sufficient in size by itself to result in nonattainment of the regional air quality standards. Instead, a project’s emissions may be individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when taken in combination with past, present, and future development within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. When assessing whether there is a new significant cumulative effect, the Lead Agency shall consider whether the incremental effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects [CCR §15064(h)(1)]. Per CEQA Guidelines §15064(h)(3), a Lead Agency may determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program, including, but not limited to an air quality attainment or maintenance plan that provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area in which the project is located (SJVAPCD, 2015).
GAMAQI also states, “If a project is significant based on the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants, then it is also cumulatively significant. This does not imply that if the project is below all such significance thresholds, it cannot be cumulatively significant.” (SJVAPCD, 2015). Based on the analysis conducted for this Project, it is individually less than significant. This AQIA, however, also considered the impacts of the proposed Project in conjunction with the impacts of other projects previously proposed in the area. The following cumulative impacts were considered:
• Cumulative O3 Impacts (ROG and NOx) from numerous sources within the region, including transport from outside the region. O3 is formed through chemical reactions of ROG and NOx in the presence of sunlight.
• Cumulative CO Impacts produced primarily by vehicular emissions. • Cumulative PM10 Impacts from within the region and locally from the various projects. Such projects may cumulatively produce a significant amount of PM10 if several projects conduct grading or earthmoving activities at the same time; and • Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) Impacts on sensitive receptors.
5.1 - Cumulative Regional Air Quality Impacts
The most recent, certified SJVAB Emission Inventory data available from the SJVAPCD is based on data gathered for the 2024 annual inventory. This data will be used to assist the SJVAPCD in demonstrating attainment of Federal 1-hour O3 Standards. Error! Reference source not found. provides a comparative look at the impacts proposed by the proposed Project to the SJVAB Emissions Inventory.
Cumulative Impacts
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
Table 5-1
Comparative Analysis Based on SJVAB 2024 Inventory
Emissions Inventory Source
Pollutant (tons/year)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Fresno County – 20242 21,698.5 11,242.0 54,483.2 553.3 24,252.1 6,059.4 SJVAB – 20242 108,775.1 51,926.7 215,561.3 2,265.2 97,564.5 23,861.1 Proposed Project 2.09 0.88 6.04 0.01 1.04 0.29
Proposed Project’s % of Fresno1 0.0099% 0.0078% 0.0111% 0.0018% 0.0043% 0.0048% Proposed Project’s % of SJVAB1 0.0019% 0.0017% 0.0028% 0.0004% 0.0011% 0.0012% Source: CARB, 2025
Notes: 1) Percentages equaling 0.0000 could represent a percent <0.00005. 2) This is the latest inventory available as of February 2025, excluding Natural Sources.
As shown in Error! Reference source not found. the proposed Project does not pose a substantial increase to basin emissions, as such basin emissions would be essentially the same if the Project is approved.
Error! Reference source not found., Table 5-3, and Error! Reference source not found. provide CARB Emissions Inventory projections for the year 2030 for both the SJVAB and the Fresno County portion of the air basin (see Appendix C). Looking at the SJVAB Emissions predicted by the CARB year 2030 emissions inventory, the Fresno County portion of the air basin is a moderate source of the emissions. The proposed Project produces a small portion of the total emissions in both Fresno County and the entire SJVAB.
Table 5-2
Emission Inventory SJVAB 2030 Projection – Tons per Year ROG NOX CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Total Emissions 104,380.5 38,036.3 168,950.5 2,208.6 99,271.2 21,758.7 Percent Stationary Sources 29.98% 15.51% 4.43% 78.83% 4.30% 11.34% Percent Area-Wide Sources 55.76% 6.01% 27.47% 8.59% 91.44% 76.99% Percent Mobile Sources 14.26% 78.48% 74.09% 12.58% 4.26% 11.66% Total Stationary Source Emissions 31,297.7 5,897.7 7,489.8 1,741.1 4,266.9 2,468.5 Total Area-Wide Source Emissions 58,202.9 2,285.6 36,279.9 189.8 90,775.5 16,752.8 Total Mobile Source Emissions 18,359.5 37,193.5 145,708.0 292.0 4,380.0 2,737.5 Source: CARB, 2025
Note: Total may not add due to rounding.
Table 5-3
Emission Inventory Fresno County 2030 Projection –
Tons per Year
ROG NOX CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Total Emissions 20,463.4 7,796.4 40,658.8 547.5 24,307.2 5,277.5 Percent Stationary Sources 34.58% 16.47% 2.97% 77.86% 2.83% 6.89% Percent Area-Wide Sources 49.70% 7.60% 28.34% 10.34% 93.58% 84.31% Percent Mobile Sources 15.72% 75.93% 68.69% 11.87% 3.59% 8.80% Total Stationary Source Emissions 7,076.3 1,283.7 1,206.7 426.3 687.7 363.5 Total Area-Wide Source Emissions 10,170.7 592.8 11,524.1 56.6 22,746.1 4,449.7 Total Mobile Source Emissions 3,216.4 5,919.9 27,928.0 65.0 873.1 464.3 Source: CARB, 2025
Note: Total may not add due to rounding.
Cumulative Impacts
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
Table 5-4
2030 Emissions Projections – Proposed Project, Fresno County and SJVAB ROG NOX PM10
Proposed Project 2.09 0.88 1.04
Fresno County 20,463.4 7,796.4 24,307.2
SJVAB 104,380.5 38,036.3 99,271.2
Proposed Project Percent of Fresno County 0.010% 0.011% 0.004% Proposed Project Percent of SJVAB 0.002% 0.002% 0.001%
Fresno County Percent of SJVAB 19.60% 20.50% 24.49%
As shown above, the proposed Project would pose an inconsequential impact on regional O3 and PM10 formation. Therefore, this Project would not be considered cumulatively considerable in its contribution to regional O3 and PM10 impacts.
5.2 - Cumulative Local Air Quality Impacts
SJVAPCD uses a single threshold for the determination of significance for both projectspecific and cumulative impacts. Air quality in SJVAB has improved over the past decades, as shown in Section 3.3, which indicates that the single threshold is sufficient for assessing cumulative impacts. The proposed Project would generate less-than-significant impacts for criteria air pollutants; therefore, the Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3); (SJVAPCD, 2015).
5.3 - Cumulative Hazardous Air Pollutants
The GAMAQI also states that when evaluating potential impacts related to HAPs, “impacts of local pollutants (CO, HAPs) are cumulatively significant when modeling shows that the combined emissions from the project and other existing and planned projects will exceed air quality standards.” Because the Project would not be a significant source of HAPs, the proposed Project would also not be expected to pose a significant cumulative CO or HAPs impact.
5.4 - Cumulative Carbon Monoxide (CO) – Mobile Sources
The SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI has identified CO impacts from impacted traffic intersections and roadway segments as being potentially cumulatively considerable. Traffic increases and added congestion caused by a project can combine to cause a violation of the SJVAPCD’s CO standard, also known as a “hotspot.” There are two criteria established by the GAMAQI by which CO “hotspot” modeling is required:
1. A traffic study for the project indicates that the Level of Service (LOS) on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity would be reduced to LOS E or F.
Cumulative Impacts
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
2. A traffic study indicates that the project would substantially worsen an already existing LOS F on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity.
A traffic study was completed for this Project (Ruettgers & Schuler, 2025). According to the traffic study, impacted intersections and roadway segments are anticipated to operate at a LOS of C or better. Therefore, CO “hotspot” modeling was not conducted for this Project, and no concentrated excessive CO emissions are expected to be caused once the proposed Project is completed.
Consistency with the Air Quality Attainment Plan
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
SECTION 6 - CONSISTENCY WITH THE AIR QUALITY ATTAINMENT PLAN Air quality impacts from proposed projects within Fresno County are controlled through policies and provisions of the SJVAPCD and the Fresno County General Plan (FCDPWP, 2024). In order to demonstrate that a proposed project would not cause further air quality degradation in either the SJVAPCD’s plan to improve air quality within the air basin or the federal requirements to meet certain air quality compliance goals, each project should also demonstrate consistency with the SJVAPCD’s adopted Air Quality Attainment Plans (AQAP) for O3 and PM10. The SJVAPCD is required to submit a “Rate of Progress” document to CARB that demonstrates past and planned progress toward reaching attainment for all criteria pollutants. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires air pollution control districts with severe or extreme air quality problems to provide for a five percent reduction in nonattainment emissions per year. The AQAP prepared for the San Joaquin Valley by the SJVAPCD complies with this requirement. CARB reviews, approves, or amends the document and forwards the plan to the EPA for final review and approval within the SIP.
Air pollution sources associated with stationary sources are regulated through the permitting authority of the SJVAPCD under the New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule (SJVAPCD Rule 2201). Owners of any new or modified equipment that emits, reduces, or controls air contaminants, except those specifically exempted by the SJVAPCD, are required to apply for an Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate (SJVAPCD Rule 2010).
Additionally, best available control technology (BACT) is required on specific types of stationary equipment and is required to offset both stationary source emission increases along with increases in cargo carrier emissions if the specified threshold levels are exceeded (SJVAPCD Rule 2201, 4.7.1). Through this mechanism, the SJVAPCD would ensure that all stationary sources within the project area would be subject to the standards of the SJVAPCD to ensure that new developments do not result in net increases in stationary sources of criteria air pollutants.
6.1 - Required Evaluation Guidelines
CEQA Guidelines and the Federal Clean Air Act (Sections 176 and 316) contain specific references on the need to evaluate consistency between a proposed project and the applicable AQAP for the Project site. To accomplish this, CARB has developed a three-step approach to determine project conformity with the applicable AQAP:
1. Determination that an AQAP is being implemented in the area where the project is being proposed. The SJVAPCD has implemented the current, modified AQAP as approved by CARB.
2. The proposed project must be consistent with the growth assumptions of the applicable AQAP. The proposed Project is included in the employment increases projected in the Fresno County General Plan.
3. The project must contain in its design all reasonably available and feasible air quality control measures. The proposed Project incorporates various policy and rulerequired implementation measures that will reduce related emissions.
Consistency with the Air Quality Attainment Plan
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
The CCAA and AQAP identify transportation control measures as methods to further reduce emissions from mobile sources. Strategies identified to reduce vehicular emissions such as reductions in vehicle trips, vehicle use, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle idling, and traffic congestion, in order to reduce vehicular emissions, can be implemented as control measures under the CCAA as well. Additional measures may also be implemented through the building process, such as providing electrical outlets on exterior walls of structures to encourage the use of electrical landscape maintenance equipment or measures such as electrical outlets for electrical systems on diesel trucks to reduce or eliminate idling time.
The growth represented by the proposed Project was not anticipated by the Fresno County General Plan and incorporated into the AQAP, therefore, the General Plan will require an update, however, conclusions may be drawn from the following criteria:
1. That, by definition, the proposed emissions from the Project are below the SJVAPCD’s established emissions impact thresholds.
2. That the primary source of emissions from the Project would be motor vehicles which would be licensed through the State of California and whose emissions are already incorporated into the CARB’s Eastern Fresno County’s Emissions Inventory.
Based on these factors, the Project is consistent with the AQAP.
6.2 - Consistency with the Fresno Council of Government’s Regional Conformity Analysis
The Fresno Council of Governments (FresnoCOG) Conformity Analysis Determination demonstrates that the federal and regional transportation plans in Fresno County portion of the San Joaquin Valley air quality attainment areas would not hinder the efforts set out in the CARB’s SIP for each area’s non-attainment pollutants (CO, O3, and PM10). The analysis uses an adopted regional growth forecast prepared by Applied Development Economics (ADE) which was commissioned by FresnoCOG to update these forecasts.
The FresnoCOG Regional Conformity Analysis considers General Plan Amendments (GPA) and zone changes that were enacted at the time of the analysis as projected growth within the area based on land use designations incorporated within the Fresno County General Plan.
Land use designations that are altered based on subsequent GPAs that were not included in the Regional Conformity Analysis were not incorporated into the FresnoCOG analysis.
Consequently, if a proposed project is not included in the regional growth forecast using the latest planning assumptions, it may not be said to conform to the regional growth forecast.
Under the current City of Reedley Zoning, the Project site is designated as Low Density Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre [du/acre]) and High Density Residential (15-29 du/acre) pursuant to the Reedley 2030 General Plan. The site is zoned Limited Agricultural (AL-20) according to the County of Fresno zoning map (see Error! Reference source not found.).
Consistency with the Air Quality Attainment Plan
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
Under current policies, only after a GPA is approved, can housing and employment assumptions be updated to reflect the capacity changes. The proposed development does require a zone change; therefore, the existing growth forecast will need to be modified to reflect these changes.
Consistency with the Air Quality Attainment Plan
TTM 6497 West Haven II Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
Figure 6-1
Fresno County Zoning
Mitigation and Other Recommended Measures
TTM 6497 West Haven II – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
SECTION 7 - MITIGATION AND OTHER RECOMMENDED MEASURES
The estimated construction and operational emissions from the proposed Project would be less than significant after the specific mitigation measures listed below. However, to ensure that the Project is in compliance with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations and that emissions are further reduced, the applicant should implement and comply with a number of measures that are either recommended as a “good operating practice” for environmental stewardship, or they are required by regulation. Some of the listed measures are regulatory requirements or construction requirements that would result in further emission reductions through their inclusion in Project construction and long-term design. The following measures either have been applied to the Project through the CalEEMod model and would be incorporated into the Project by design or would be implemented in conjunction with SJVAPCD rules as conditions of approval.
7.1 - Applicable PM10 Reduction Measures
As the Project would be completed in compliance with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII, dust control measures would be taken to ensure compliance, specifically during the grading and construction phases. The required Regulation VIII measures are as follows:
• Water previously exposed surfaces (soil) whenever visible dust is capable of drifting from the site or approaches 20 percent opacity.
• Water all unpaved haul roads a minimum of three times/day or whenever visible dust from such roads is capable of drifting from the site or approaches 20 percent opacity. • Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 miles per hour. • Install and maintain a track-out control device that meets the specifications of SJVAPCD Rule 8041 if the site exceeds 150 vehicle trips per day or more than 20 vehicle trips per day by vehicles with three or more axles. • Stabilize all disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for production purposes using water, chemical stabilizers, or by covering with a tarp or other suitable cover.
• Control fugitive dust emissions during land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, leveling, grading, or cut and fill operations with application of water or by presoaking. • When transporting materials offsite, maintain a freeboard limit of at least 6 inches and cover or effectively wet to limit visible dust emissions. • Limit and remove the accumulation of mud and/or dirt from adjacent public roadways at the end of each workday. (Use of dry rotary brushes is prohibited except when preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit visible dust emissions, and use of blowers is expressly forbidden.)
• Stabilize the surface of storage piles following the addition or removal of materials using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressants.
• Remove visible track-out from the site at the end of each workday. • Cease grading or other activities that cause excessive (greater than 20 percent opacity) dust formation during periods of high winds (greater than 20 mph over a one-hour period).
Mitigation and Other Recommended Measures
TTM 6497 West Haven II – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
7.2 - Recommended Measures to Reduce Equipment Exhaust
In addition, the GAMAQI guidance document lists the following measures as approved and recommended for construction activities. These measures are recommended:
• Maintain all construction equipment as recommended by manufacturer manuals. • Shut down equipment when not in use for extended periods. • Construction equipment shall operate no longer than eight cumulative hours per day. • Use electric equipment for construction whenever possible in lieu of diesel or gasoline powered equipment.
• Curtail use of high-emitting construction equipment during periods of high or excessive ambient pollutant concentrations.
• All construction vehicles shall be equipped with proper emissions control equipment and kept in good and proper running order to substantially reduce NOx emissions. • On-road and Off-road diesel equipment shall use diesel particulate filters if permitted under the manufacturer’s guidelines.
• On-road and Off-road diesel equipment shall use cooled exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) if permitted under the manufacturer’s guidelines. • All construction workers shall be encouraged to shuttle (car-pool) to retail establishments or to remain on-site during lunch breaks.
7.3 - Recommended Measures to Reduce Equipment Exhaust
The following measures are recommended to further reduce the potential for long-term emissions from the Project. These measures are required as a matter of regulatory compliance:
• The Project design shall comply with applicable standards set forth in Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code to minimize total consumption of energy. • The developer shall comply with the provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 4601 - Architectural Coatings, during the construction of all buildings and facilities. Application of architectural coatings shall be completed in a manner that poses the least emissions impacts whenever such application is deemed proficient. • The applicant shall comply with the provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 4641 during the construction and pavement of all roads and parking areas within the project area.
Specifically, the applicant shall not allow the use of:
o Rapid cure cutback asphalt.
o Medium cure cutback asphalt.
o Slow cure cutback asphalt (as specified in SJVAPCD Rule 4641, Section 5.1.3); or Emulsified asphalt (as specified in SJVAPCD Rule 4641, Section 5.1.4). o The developer shall comply with applicable provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review).
Level of Significance After Mitigation
TTM 6497 West Haven II – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
SECTION 8 - LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
The proposed Project would have short-term air quality impacts due to construction activities as well as vehicular emissions. Both of these impacts would be mitigated and were found to be less than significant before and after mitigation.
The proposed Project would result in long-term air quality impacts due to operational and related mobile source emissions. These impacts would be mitigated and were found to be less than significant before and after mitigation.
The proposed Project would result in impacts to greenhouse gases and climate change due to construction and operational emissions. These impacts were found to be less than significant.
The proposed Project, in conjunction with other past, present, and foreseeable future projects, would result in cumulative short-term and long-term impacts to air quality. The proposed Project’s incremental contribution to these impacts would be mitigated below thresholds of significance and would not be considered cumulatively considerable.
Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts was found to be less than significant.
The proposed Project, in conjunction with other past, present, and foreseeable future projects, would result in cumulative long-term impacts to global climate change. Given the cumulative nature of the energy industry and given consumers of electricity and diesel fuel are in effect regulated by higher level emissions restrictions on the producers of these energy sources, the proposed Project’s incremental contribution to these impacts will be mitigated to the extent feasible and are considered less than significant.
References
TTM 6497 West Haven II – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
SECTION 9 - REFERENCES
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2017. California Emissions Estimator Model tm (CalEEMod), version 2022.1.1.29, released November 2024.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020. Background Emissions Data. https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/index.html. Accessed December 2024. --------. 2024a. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2022: Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators. 2024. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024- 09/nc-2000_2022_ghg_inventory_trends.pdf
--------. 2025. Almanac Emission Projection Data.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/applications/cepam2019v1-04-standard-emission-tool.
Accessed 2025.
--------. 2024b. “Ambient Air Quality Standards.” July 22, 2024. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-
08/AAQS%20Table_ADA_FINAL_07222024.pdf
--------. 2021. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2019 – Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators.
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2019/ghg_inventory_tre nds_00-19.pdf
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2006. Climate Action Team (CAT) Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature.
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2006report/2006- 04-03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT.PDF
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines. 2024. (Public Resources Code 21000 to 21177) and CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 – 15387).
Enviropedia, 2019. Greenhouse Gas Emissions website, accessed December 2024. http://www.enviropedia.org.uk/Global_Warming/Emissions.php Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG). July 2024. Conformity Analysis for the 2025 Federal Transportation Improvement and the 2022 Regional Transportation Plan Fresno County Department of Public Works and Planning (FCDPWP). 2024. Fresno County General Plan Policy Document.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2017. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ References
TTM 6497 West Haven II – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
---------. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report. 2014.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2025a. Ambient Air Quality Standards & Valley Attainment Status. https://ww2.valleyair.org/air-qualityinformation/ambient-air-quality-standards-valley-attainmnet-status/, accessed December 2024.
----------. 2024. Air Monitoring Location Map.
https://www.valleyair.org/media/3lkhl4ye/2024-network-plan-map.jpg, accessed December 2024.
----------. 2024a. 2024 Plan for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 Standard. June 20, 2024. https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/gw5bacvj/2024-pm25-plan.pdf ----------. 2025b. 2024 Annual Report to the Community. https://www.valleyair.org/newsoutreach-and-education/news/valley-air-district-releases-the-2024-annual-reportto-the-community/ ----------. 2025c. 2024 Annual Report on the District’s Indirect Source Review Program.
January 7, 2025. https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/vzuixb0n/item-12_2024-isrannual-report.pdf ----------. 2025d. Meteorological Data Zip Files for Fresno 2018-2022. https://www.valleyair.org/permitting/air-dispersion-modeling/meteorologicaldata-zip-files/ ----------. 2022. 2022 Plan for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard. December 15, 2022. https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/q55posm0/0000-2022-plan-for-the-2015-8- hour-ozone-standard.pdf
----------. 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. March 19, 2015. ----------. 2023. 2023 Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request for the Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard. June 15, 2023. https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/itoegkch/03- adopted-2023-maintenance-plan-and-redesignation-request-for-the-revoked-1- hour-ozone-standard.pdf
United Nations, 2011. The Millennium Development Goals Report 2011. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/(2011_E)%20MDG%20Report%202011_ Book%20LR.pdf
United States Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA). 2023. International Energy Outlook 2023. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/IEO2023_Narrative.pdf References
TTM 6497 West Haven II – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2024. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990–2022.
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/us-ghg-inventory-2024- main-text_04-18-2024.pdf.
United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) National Map. 2021. Reedley, CA. 7.5 minute. https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/basic/?basemap=b1&category=ustopo&title=US %20Topo%20Download
United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). 2014. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/. Accessed June 2020.
Western Regional Climate Center, 2024. Fresno, California, Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary, 1/1/1948 to 6/09/2016. https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca3257.
Accessed February 2025.
APPENDIX A
EXISTING AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA
!
!
"#
$%&'(
&)"
$$"
*+*,*+***+*-
./01 21/34516170./01 21/34516170./01 21/34516170
89530:9;<= >?@ABCDEFGH?IAJKLAAA>?MAN KLAKO
P1QR7S:9;<= H?ITKKLAATUVWBKLKXB>?MO KLKXB
Y<95S:9;<= H?IOBKLAKJUVWTKLKXZUVWAN KLKXZ
8R450<:9;<= >?@AZKLAKTUVWO[KLKXKHW\OB KLKX[
]/^9_R579/=
`./a3bcRd10<1P0/7S/5S= XT T
]/^9_R579/.139;7/09R7
e/^41= KLAAKLAA KLAA
fgh1Q01Si1/j./a
]R7Q1705/09R7= KLAAKKLAKX KLAKN
k/09R7/^=
lmnopqrstuvwuxvnyzn{z| EC C
}~un{pvnvuzu
vuz
ru{s
uuzny
u
mnop|
CDCD CD
~un{pvnvuzu
vuz
ru{s
uuzny
u
mnop|
EDCCDC CDC
nvxvnyzn{zmupy
nu| CDEECDEEE CDEC
1/5]Rd15/;1= XTXZ XZ
kR013=
:R45^aRR7161/345161703/7S51^/01S30/09309Q3/51/d/9^/c^1/085137R.5466R7SP05110c10117, /7S*+*-PR61a1/53970<935/7;16/a7R0c151h5131701S b^^QR7Q1705/09R731gh51331S97h/503h1569^^9R7
Y<17/09R7/^,<R45RR7130/7S/5S/351dRj1S97471*++P0/09309Q351^/01S0R0<17/09R7/^,<R45RR71 30/7S/5S/513<R797R5
b71gQ11S/7Q1R_/30/7S/5S937R071Q133/59^a51^/01S0R/d9R^/09R7R_0<130/7S/5S 1/5]Rd15/;197S9Q/0130<11g01700R<9Q</d/9^/c^16R790R597;S/0/51h5131700<10961R_0<1a1/5<17 QR7Q1705/09R73/511gh1Q01S0Rc1<9;<130+61/730</0S/0/51h5131707R71R_0<1<9;<h159RS,++61/73 0</0S/0/51h5131700<1170951<9;<h159RSb<9;<1/5]Rd15/;1SR137R061/70</00<151/334__9Q9170 S/0/_R5/774/^30/09309Q30Rc1QR739S151Sd/^9S
61/730<151/39734__9Q9170S/0//d/9^/c^10RS101569710<1d/^41
¡¢£¢¤¥¦§¢¨¦§©§ª«¦§§§§ª§ ¬«¨¦¥¦®¬¤ª«¯°¦±§
!
!
"#
$%&'(
) &*
+,+-+,+++,+.
/012 32045627281/012 32045627281/012 32045627281
9:641;:<=> ?@ABCCDEEF?@AEGCDCHGI@JFF CDECE
K2LM8N;:<=> I@OEHCDECPQRSPCDCHGI@OBC CDCHT
U=:6N;:<=> ?@AFHCDECFQRSBCDCHCI@JFB CDCHT
9M561=;:<=> ?@AFPCDCHVQRSFCDCPGI@JET CDCHW
X0Y:ZM68:0>
[/0\4]^M_21=2K108N06N> GF B
X0Y:ZM68:0/24:<801:M8
`0Y52> CDEECDEE CDEC
abc2L12Nd20e/0\
XM8L281601:M8> CDECVCDECV CDECE
f01:M80Y>
ghijklmnopqrpsqituivuw xx x
yz{piv|kq}~iqpu|pqpu
~mpvn|ppuitp
hijkw
x
xx
x x
x
z{piv|kq}~iqpu|pqpu
~mpvn|ppuitp
hijkw
x
xx
x x
x
iqsqituivuhpk}t
ipw x
x
x
x
206XM_260<2> HHHH HP
fM124>
;M56Y\MM8272045627281408N62Y012N4101:41:L40620_0:Y0^Y20196248M06Y08N^21228+,-+08N+,+. KM72\2064:81=:4608<270\8M1^262c6242812N
]YYLM8L281601:M842bc62442N:8c0614c267:YY:M8
U=2801:M80Y-=M56MM824108N06N0462_Me2N:8582+,,K101:41:L462Y012N1M1=2801:M80Y-=M56MM82 4108N06N0624=M8:8M6
]82bL22N08L2MZ04108N06N:48M182L24406:Y\62Y012N1M0_:MY01:M8MZ1=24108N06N 206XM_260<2:8N:L01241=22b12811M=:L=0_0:Y0^Y27M8:1M6:8<N01062c6242811=21:72MZ1=2\206=28 LM8L281601:M840622bc2L12N1M^2=:<=241,720841=01N01062c6242818M82MZ1=2=:<=c26:MN-,,72084 1=01N01062c6242811=2281:62=:<=c26:MN]=:<=206XM_260<2NM248M172081=011=2620445ZZ:L:281 N010ZM608850Y4101:41:L41M^2LM84:N262N_0Y:N
720841=26204:845ZZ:L:281N0100_0:Y0^Y21MN21267:821=2_0Y52
¡¢£¡¢¤¢¥¦¡¢¢¢¢¥¢§¦£¡ ¨¡©§¥¦ª«¡¬¢
!
!
"#$%&'()*&$$ +%,-,
./.0./.../.1
2345 6537895:5;42345 6537895:5;42345 6537895:5;4
<=974>=?@A BCDEFFGHIEJKLIFGHFMNCOEF FGHFI
P5QR;S>=?@A BCDIMFGHHMJKLTFGHFHNCUHV FGHFI
W@=9S>=?@A BCDIXFGHHEBCDHMFGFMVNCUIE FGFMX
<R894@>=?@A NCOHMFGHHHNCOITFGFMTNCUII FGFMT
Y3Z=[R9;=3A
\23]7^_R`54@5P43;S39SA ME E
Y3Z=[R9;=3257=?;34=R;
a3Z85A FGHHFGHH FGHH
bcd5Q45Se53f23]
YR;Q5;4934=R;A FGHHEFGHHT FGHFX
g34=R;3ZA
hijklmnopqrsqtrjuvjwvx yy y
z{|qjw}lr~jrqv}qrqv
nqwo
}qqvjuq
ijklx
yy yy
{|qjw}lr~jrqv}qrqv
nqwo
}qqvjuq
ijklx
yyyy yy
jrtrjuvjwviql~u
jqx yy y
539YR`593?5A MM M
gR457A
>R89Z]RR;5:537895:5;473;S95Z345S7434=74=Q73953`3=Z3_Z534YZR`=7ga=ZZ3^`5;85_5455;0/3;S ./.1PR:5]5397=;4@=793;?5:3];R4_595d9575;45S
^ZZQR;Q5;4934=R;75cd95775S=;d3947d59:=ZZ=R;
W@5;34=R;3Z0@R89RR;5743;S39S3795`Rf5S=;8;5.//P434=74=Q795Z345S4R4@5;34=R;3Z0@R89RR;5 743;S39S3957@R;=;R9
^;5cQ55S3;Q5R[3743;S39S=7;R4;5Q57739=Z]95Z345S4R3`=RZ34=R;R[4@5743;S39S 539YR`593?5=;S=Q34574@55c45;44R@=Q@3`3=Z3_Z5:R;=4R9=;?S34395d9575;44@54=:5R[4@5]539@5; QR;Q5;4934=R;73955cd5Q45S4R_5@=?@574/:53;74@34S34395d9575;4;R;5R[4@5@=?@d59=RS0//:53;7 4@34S34395d9575;44@55;4=95@=?@d59=RS^@=?@539YR`593?5SR57;R4:53;4@344@5953778[[=Q=5;4 S343[R93;;83Z7434=74=Q74R_5QR;7=S595S`3Z=S
:53;74@59537=;78[[=Q=5;4S3433`3=Z3_Z54RS5459:=;54@5`3Z85
¡¢¡£¤¥¦¡§¥¦¨¦©ª¥¦¦¦¦©¦«ª§¥¤¬¥«£©ª®¯¥°¦
!" #$%
&'
()*+,
*-&
((&
./.0./.../.1
23456789:;593<523456789:;593<52345 6789:;593<5
=34>?@3A./0BC4DE/F/G/
HHIJK
L>9M48><NK OPQRSTUTVVWPXRYTUTSVOPZ[ TUTSS
C5\?@D8><NK WPX[STUTVV]^_STUTSROPZR` TUTSY
aN>9D8><NK OPQRVTUTVb]^_bTUTcSOPZR TUTSb
L?d94N8><NK WPX[VTUTSS]^_[eTUTcYW_f[S TUTS[
g3A>h?9@>3C4DE/F/G/HHIJK
L>9M48><NK OPQRSTURTTWPXRYTUTSVOPZ[ TUTSS
C5\?@D8><NK WPX[STUTVV]^_STUTS[OPZR` TUTSc
aN>9D8><NK OPQRVTUTVb]^_bTUTcSOPZR TUTSb
L?d94N8><NK WPXbTTUTSV]^_[eTUTcYW_f[S TUTS[
=34>?@3A./0BC4DE/F/G/
HHIJK
i23jM:k?;54N5C43@D39DK bVS [T
=34lAC43@D39D25M><@
m3Ad5K TUTS[TUTSb TUTS[
=34>?@3An539g?;593<5K V`VV VS
g3A>h?9@>3C4DE/F/G/HHIJK
i23jM:k?;54N5C43@D39DK eRS [e
g3A>h?9@>325M><@34>?@
m3Ad5K TUTVbTUTVb TUTSV
opH5\45Dq53r23j
g?@\5@4934>?@K TUTV`TUTV` TUTV[
g3A>h?9@>3n539g?;593<5K VbVY VY
=?45MK
o><N47N?d9?s?@53;593<5M3@D95A345DM434>M4>\M3953;3>A3kA534L95M@?729dII?@DC49554k54t55@0u6v3@D ./.1FC?I5j539M>@4N>M93@<5I3j@?4k595H95M5@45DF
:AA3;593<5M5pH95MM5D>@H394MH59I>AA>?@F
:@5p\55D3@\5?h3M43@D39D>M@?4@5\5MM39>Aj95A345D4?3;>?A34>?@?h4N5M43@D39DF C43453@D@34>?@3AM434>M4>\MI3jD>hh59h?94N5h?AA?t>@<953M?@MK =34>?@3A67N?d93;593<5M39549d@\345D4?4N955D5\>I3AHA3\5MwC434567N?d93;593<5M3959?d@D5D4?4N955D5\>I3AHA3\5MF C4345\9>459>3h?95@Md9>@<4N34D343395Mdhh>\>5@4Aj\?IHA545h?9\3A\dA34>@<67N?d93;593<5M395I?95M49>@<5@44N3@4N5@34>?@3A\9>459>3F 23>AjI3p>IdI67N?d93;593<5M3MM?\>345Dt>4N4N5=34>?@3A/F/G/HHIM43@D39D5p\AdD54N?M567N?d9 3;593<5M4N34N3;5h>9M4N?d9Mk54t55@I>D@><N43@DxK//3Iyq3\>h>\C43@D39Da>I5F
z{|}~}|
|}
}
z
~}
!" #$%
&'
()*+,
- *.
/0/1/0///0/2
3456789:;<6:4=63456789:;<6:4=63456 789:;<6:4=6
>45?@A4B/01CD5EF0G0H0
IIJKL
M?:N59?=OL PQRSTUVUWXPQRYZUVUTX[Q\SX UVUT]
D6^@AE9?=OL PQRSWUVUT_`abTUVUTU[Q\S UVUTS
cO?:E9?=OL [QdYWUVUTZ`abSUVU__[QdXU UVUTU
M@e:5O9?=OL PQRXUUVUTZ`abXUVU_X[Q\YZ UVUTU
f4B?g@:A?4D5EF0G0H0IIJKL
M?:N59?=OL PQRSTUVUWXPQRYZUVUTX[Q\SX UVUT]
D6^@AE9?=OL PQRSWUVUT_`abTUVUTU[Q\S UVUTS
cO?:E9?=OL PQRXUUVUT_`abSUVU_T[QdXU UVUTY
M@e:5O9?=OL [QdYWUVUTZ`abXUVU_X[Q\YZ UVUTY
>45?@A4B/01CD5EF0G0H0
IIJKL
h34iN;j@<65O6D54AE4:EL YTYU Yk
>45lBD54AE4:E36N?=A
m4Be6L UVUT]UVUTX UVU_W
>45?@A4Bn64:f@<6:4=6L YUUWW WW
f4B?g@:A?4D5EF0G0H0IIJKL
h34iN;j@<65O6D54AE4:EL SSYU Y_
f4B?g@:A?436N?=A45?@A
m4Be6L UVUWSUVUWU UVUT_
opI6^56Eq64r34i
f@A^6A5:45?@AL UVUWSUVUWY UVUTT
f4B?g@:A?4n64:f@<6:4=6L WWWW W_
>@56NL
o?=O58O@e:@s@A64<6:4=6N4AE:6B456EN545?N5?^N4:64<4?B4jB645M:6NA@8t4:B4AEj65u66A/01/4AE/0/2G D@J6i64:N?A5O?N:4A=6J4iA@5j6:6I:6N6A56EG
;BB4<6:4=6N6pI:6NN6E?AI4:5NI6:J?BB?@AG
;A6p^66E4A^6@g4N54AE4:E?NA@5A6^6NN4:?Bi:6B456E5@4<?@B45?@A@g5O6N54AE4:EG D54564AEA45?@A4BN545?N5?^NJ4iE?gg6:g@:5O6g@BB@u?A=:64N@ANL >45?@A4B78O@e:4<6:4=6N4:65:eA^456E5@5O:66E6^?J4BIB4^6NvD545678O@e:4<6:4=6N4:6:@eAE6E5@5O:66E6^?J4BIB4^6NG D5456^:?56:?4g@:6ANe:?A=5O45E4544:6Negg?^?6A5Bi^@JIB656g@:^4B^eB45?A=78O@e:4<6:4=6N4:6J@:6N5:?A=6A55O4A5O6A45?@A4B^:?56:?4G 34?BiJ4p?JeJ78O@e:4<6:4=6N4NN@^?456Eu?5O5O6>45?@A4B0G0H0IIJN54AE4:E6p^BeE65O@N678O@e:
4<6:4=6N5O45O4<6g?:N5O@e:Nj65u66AJ?EA?=O54AEwL004Jxq4^?g?^D54AE4:Ec?J6G
yz{|}~|{{|
|y}
|
!" #$%
&'()*+,-.*(( /)010
232423222325
6789:;<=>?9=7@96789:;<=>?9=7@96789 :;<=>?9=7@9
A78BCD7E234FG8HI3J3K3
LLMNO
PB=Q8<B@RO STUVWXYZXXSTUZ[XYXW\]T^V_ XYXW_
G9`CDH<B@RO STUVaXYXaZbcdVXYXW_]T^Ze XYXWV
fRB=H<B@RO STU_XXYXaXbcd[XYXWX]Tg_X XYXWZ
PCh=8R<B@RO ]TgZaXYXWebcdWXYXWX]T^V XYXWZ
i7EBjC=DB7G8HI3J3K3LLMNO
PB=Q8<B@RO STUVWXYZXXSTUZ[XYXW\]T^V_ XYXW\
G9`CDH<B@RO STUVaXYXaVbcdVXYXW_]T^Ze XYXWV
fRB=H<B@RO STU_XXYXaXbcd[XYXWX klmn XYXWV
PCh=8R<B@RO ]TgZaXYXW[bcdWXYXWX]Tg_X XYXWZ
A78BCD7E234FG8HI3J3K3
LLMNO
o67pQ>qC?98R9G87DH7=HO _\V_ VZ
A78rEG87DH7=H69QB@D
s7Eh9O XYXW_XYXW\ XYXWV
A78BCD7Et97=iC?9=7@9O aaaW an
i7EBjC=DB7G8HI3J3K3LLMNO
o67pQ>qC?98R9G87DH7=HO _nV[ V_
i7EBjC=DB769QB@D78BCD
s7Eh9O XYXaeXYXae XYXaV
uvL9`89Hw97x67p
iCD`9D8=78BCDO XYXa[XYXa[ XYXa_
i7EBjC=DB7t97=iC?9=7@9O anan a_
AC89QO
uB@R8;RCh=CyCD97?9=7@9Q7DH=9E789HQ878BQ8B`Q7=97?7BE7qE978iEC?BQ;AsBEE7>?9Dh9q98z99D4{{37DH 2325JGCM9p97=QBD8RBQ=7D@9M7pDC8q9=9L=9Q9D89HJ
>EE7?9=7@9Q9vL=9QQ9HBDL7=8QL9=MBEEBCDJ
>D9v`99H7D`9Cj7Q87DH7=HBQDC8D9`9QQ7=BEp=9E789H8C7?BCE78BCDCj8R9Q87DH7=HJ G87897DHD78BCD7EQ878BQ8B`QM7pHBjj9=jC=8R9jCEECzBD@=97QCDQO A78BCD7E:;RCh=7?9=7@9Q7=98=hD`789H8C8R=99H9`BM7ELE7`9Q|G8789:;RCh=7?9=7@9Q7=9=ChDH9H8C8R=99H9`BM7ELE7`9QJ G8789`=B89=B7jC=9DQh=BD@8R78H7877=9QhjjB`B9D8Ep`CMLE989jC=`7E`hE78BD@:;RCh=7?9=7@9Q7=9MC=9Q8=BD@9D88R7D8R9D78BCD7E`=B89=B7J 67BEpM7vBMhM:;RCh=7?9=7@9Q7QQC`B789HzB8R8R9A78BCD7E3J3K3LLMQ87DH7=H9v`EhH98RCQ9:;RCh= 7?9=7@9Q8R78R7?9jB=Q8RCh=Qq98z99DMBHDB@R87DH}O337M~w7`BjB`G87DH7=HfBM9J
!
"#
$%&'(
&)"
$$"
*+*,*+***+*-
./01 21/34516170./01 21/34516170./01 21/34516170
8/09:7/;<
=9530>9?@< ABCDEFGHIBJDDHKGL MCNLD HKGD
O1P:7Q>9?@< MCNDHHKGRSTUVHHEGVABCDH HFGW
X@95Q>9?@< STULRHWGVSTUVFHEGR MCNDY HVGE
=:450@>9?@< Z[\FHHGDIBJDKHFGHABCDL HVGH
]/;9^:579/<
=9530>9?@< ABCDEFIBJDDHK MCNLD HK
O1P:7Q>9?@< MCNDHHKSTUVFHEABCDH HF
X@95Q>9?@< STULRHWSTUVHHE MCNDY HV
=:450@>9?@< Z[\FHHIBJDRHFABCDL HV
8/09:7/;<
,_>:45O0/7Q/5Q.139?7
`/;41< aHV HD
,_>:45O0/7Q/5Qbc0@
d15P1709;1< FYGWHVGR HRGK
e./f3gh:i10@1O0/7Q/5Q< RR R
g774/;O0/7Q/5Q.139?7
`/;41< DDDV DR
]/;9^:579/<
,_>:45O0Q.139?7/09:7
`/;41< WRWR ER
jkl1P01Qd1/m./f
]:7P1705/09:7< EEEH EL
e./f3gh:i10@1O0/7Q/5Q< RR R
g774/;O0Q.139?7/09:7
`/;41< DDDV DV
g774/;gi15/?1< DDDVDR
n1/5]:i15/?1< YLYYYW
8:013<
>:45;f7905:?17Q9:k9Q161/345161703/7Q51;/01Q30/09309P3/51/i/9;/h;1/0=5137:_.5466:7QO05110 h10o117,bcp/7Q*+*-qO:61f1/53970@935/7?16/f7:0h151l5131701Qq
rstuvwuxytxz{|}tux~|}u}|}}r}}}v~|{u|z
|}
!
"#
$%&'(
) &*
+,+-+,+++,+.
/012 32045627281/012 32045627281/012 32045627281
901:;80<=
>:641?:@A= BCDEFGHIJKLMFFNHOBCDEI NOHP
Q2R;8S?:@A= TDUEGNVHEJKLMINGHGBCDEF NOHM
WA:6S?:@A= TDUNNGHGJKLMGNNHFBCDEN NFHM
>;561A?:@A= XCYMNNFHGJKLMNNNHEBCDEG NMHP
Z0<:[;68:0=
>:641?:@A= BCDEFGJKLMFFNBCDEI NO
Q2R;8S?:@A= TDUEGNVJKLMINGBCDEF NO
WA:6S?:@A= TDUNNG TDUEPNNBCDEN NF
>;561A?:@A= XCYMNNFJKLMNNNJKLEI NM
901:;80<=
-\?;56Q108S06S/24:@8
]0<52= NGNN NM
-\?;56Q108S06S^_1A
`26R281:<2= NIHONEHa NaHG
b/0c4de;f21A2Q108S06S= aa a
d8850<Q108S06S/24:@8
]0<52= VV V
Z0<:[;68:0=
-\?;56Q1S/24:@801:;8
]0<52= GaGa Fa
ghi2R12S`20j/0c
Z;8R281601:;8= FGFF Fa
b/0c4de;f21A2Q108S06S= aa a
d8850<Q1S/24:@801:;8
]0<52= PP V
d8850<df260@2= VkO l206Z;f260@2= PPVIPN
9;124=
?;56<c8:16;@28S:;h:S272045627281408S62<012S4101:41:R40620f0:<0e<201>6248;\m06<08Se21n228+,-+ 08S+,+.oQ;72c2064:81A:4608@270c8;1e262i6242812So
pqrstusvwrvxyz{rsv|z{}s{~z{{p{{~{t|zyszx~z {
!
"#$%&'()*&$$ +%,-,
./.0./.../.1
2345 6537895:5;42345 6537895:5;42345 6537895:5;4
<34=>;3?@
A=974B=CD@ EFGHIJKILMNOPQHKREFGHP ISKJ
T5U>;VB=CD@ LMNPWIXKHLMNOQQHKOEFGHI IXKR
YD=9VB=CD@ ZG[HIPKQLMNOXIQKJLMNHI IXKX
A>894DB=CD@ \]^OHIOKQLMNOOIIKRLMNP IXKI
_3?=`>9;=3@
A=974B=CD@ EFGHIJLMNOPQHEFGHP IS
T5U>;VB=CD@ LMNPWIXLMNOQQHLMNP IX
YD=9VB=CD@ ZG[HIPLMNOXIQLMNHI IX
A>894DB=CD@ \]^OHIOLMNOOIIEFGHI IX
<34=>;3?@
0aB>89T43;V39V257=C;
b3?85@ IXIP IH
0aB>89T43;V39Vcd4D
e59U5;4=?5@ PRKHIPKO IOKH
f23g7hi>j54D5T43;V39V@ WW W
h;;83?T43;V39V257=C;
b3?85@ RJ R
_3?=`>9;=3@
0aB>89T4V257=C;34=>;
b3?85@ XWQW QW
klm5U45Ve53n23g
_>;U5;4934=>;@ QRQI QH
f23g7hi>j54D5T43;V39V@ WW W
h;;83?T4V257=C;34=>;
b3?85@ JJ R
h;;83?hj593C5@ SRS o539_>j593C5@ JJJXJX
<>457@
B>89?g;=49>C5;V=>l=V5:537895:5;473;V95?345V7434=74=U73953j3=?3i?534_?>j=7a<b=??3hj5;85i54p55; 0cc/3;V./.1qT>:5g5397=;4D=793;C5:3g;>4i595m9575;45Vq
rstuvwuxytxz{|}tux~|}u}|}}r}}}v~|{u|z
|}
!"#
$%
&'()*
(+$
&&$
,-,.,-,,,-,/
0123 ,4567
89371:3 0123 ,456789371:3 0123 ,4567
89371:3
;12<=>1?@
A<7B26<:C@ DEFGHIHIJKLEMINOPJQ RSTIU IPIJI
V3W=>X6<:C@ YZ[GNIQOJO\]^GU_KJU RSTGN IGOJG
`C<7X6<:C@ RSTIIGUJOLEMQHQJU RSTO IGIJP
A=a72C6<:C@ DEFOIGKJI\]^IOHQJ_ RSTH IIKJP
b1?<c=7><1@
A<7B26<:C@ DEFGHIQUJKDEFUI__JH RSTIU IPNJN
V3W=>X6<:C@ YZ[GNIQHJNDEF_I_HJO RSTGN IGHJQ
`C<7X6<:C@ RSTIIGUJG\Z^GGIQOJU RSTO IIUJQ
A=a72C6<:C@ DEFOIGPJUDEFKIPIJH RSTH IIOJH
;12<=>1?@
dB2<e123Xf01gBh,4567
V2X@ ii NJN
j31Ba73Xf01gBh,4567
V2X@ NN N
/5k789:dB2f01gBh,4567
V2X@ ii i
lmmnoplqrsotru vwxywzx{ v{x|
}~roslqrsotru vyv
b1?<c=7><1@
dB2<e123Xf01gBh,4567
V2X@ ii i
j31Ba73Xf01gBh,4567
V2X@ GNIPP IGN
8>>a1?89371:3@ ii i
/5k317j1<eae8>>a1?
89371:3@ QNi i
k317b=9371:3@ UPINN ;=23B@
01<?gj.-19371:3B1>X73?123XB212<B2<WB173191<?1?312A73B>=507aee=>XV2733232 33>.1>X,-,/
V=e3g317B<>2C<B71>:3e1g>=237373B3>23X
!"#
$%
&'()*
+ (,
-.-/-.---.-0
1234 -5678
9:482;4 1234 -56789:482;4 1234 -5678
9:482;4
<23=>?2@A
B=8C37=;DA EFGHHIJHKLMNOPHHQKH EFGIL HLPKR
S4T>?U7=;DA EFGRHVRKHMNOIHLWKQ EFGHP HLIKR
XD=8U7=;DA MNOIWHRJKRMNOQHLRKLYZ[R JHKJ
B>\83D7=;DA ]^_ILHRHKHMNOHPWKP`NFHW JHKV
a2@=b>8?=2A
B=8C37=;DA EFGHHIJRKRMNOPHLPKI EFGIL HLcKJ
S4T>?U7=;DA EFGRHVRKLMNOIHLLKL EFGHP HLHKc
XD=8U7=;DA MNOIWHRWKcMNOQPcKI`NFHW JWKP
B>\83D7=;DA EFGVHIPKVMNOHPHKW`NFHV JVKJ
<23=>?2@A
dC3=e234Uf12gCh-5678
S3UA HKLLKL LKL
i42C\84Uf12gCh-5678
S3UA HL L
06j89:;dC3f12gCh-5678
S3UA QKLWKL LKL
kllmnokpqrnsqt uvwuxywz xzwx
{|}qnrkpqrnsqt uvuz xy
a2@=b>8?=2A
dC3=e234Uf12gCh-5678
S3UA PHKW~ WWKP
i42C\84Uf12gCh-5678
S3UA PHcR WV
9??\2@9:482;4A VHKQ~ RIKc
06j428i2=e\e9??\2@
9:482;4A VJVJ VI
j428a>:482;4A LLL <>34CA
12=@gi/.2:482;4C2?U84@234UC323=C3=TC2842:2=@2@423B84C?>628@2?U4344?-./-2?U-.-0S>e4 g428C=?3D=C82?;4e2g?>3484 84C4?34U
!"#
$%&'()*+,(&& -'./.
010201000103
4567 089:;
<=7;5>7 4567 089:;<=7;5>7 4567 089:;
<=7;5>7
?56@AB5CD
E@;F6:@>GD HIJKLMKNOLPQRSMKTOL UVWKL MLXOT
Y7ZAB[:@>GD PQRKNMKXOTPQRKMMSON UVWMS \SOM
]G@;[:@>GD UVWMMLXO\PQR^MLNOS UVWM\ \NOL
EA_;6G:@>GD PQRTS\OTPQR\S^O`PQRKK TNOS
a5C@bA;B@5D
E@;F6:@>GD UVWMMKL\O\PQRSMKLOL UVWKL ML`OM
Y7ZAB[:@>GD HIJMSMX^OMPQRKMM`O\ UVWMS \\OK
]G@;[:@>GD UVWXMXXOTPQR^MLLON UVWM\ \XOX
EA_;6G:@>GD UVW`MXXOL UVWKMSKOTPQRKK TNO\
?56@AB5CD
cF6@d567[e45fFg089:;
Y6[D hLOL LOL
i75F_;7[e45fFg089:;
Y6[D LL L
39j;<=>cF6e45fFg089:;
Y6[D hNOL LOL
kllmnokpqrnsqt uvwxuywy uzwu
{|}qnrkpqrnsqt u~u ux
a5C@bA;B@5D
cF6@d567[e45fFg089:;
Y6[D MMKOXT`O\ XXOL
i75F_;7[e45fFg089:;
Y6[D MMMT` XX
<BB_5C<=7;5>7D X`OK`^OK `LON
39j75;i5@d_d<BB_5C
<=7;5>7D NMNM X`
j75;aA=7;5>7D SNL L ?A67FD
45@Cfi215=7;5>7F5B[;7C567[F656@F6@ZF5;75=5@C5C756aCA=@F9?@CC5<=7B_77677B2
25B[0103
YAd7f75;F@B6G@F;5B>7d5fBA67;7;7F7B67[
!"#
$%
&'()*
+ (,
-.-/-.---.-0
1234 -5678
9:482;4 1234 -56789:482;4 1234 -5678
9:482;4
<23=>?2@A
B=8C37=;DA EFGHIIJIKLMNOPHJHQRFNP HIJN
S4T>?U7=;DA EFGOVOJHWXYZPOIJ[QRFNO H[JZ
\D=8U7=;DA ]^_Z[`OJOWXYZOOIJVQRFZ` HVJI
B>a83D7=;DA EFGP`HJZWXYZVOOJ[QRFN` H`J`
b2@=c>8?=2A
B=8C37=;DA EFGHIIJIWXYZPPHJPQRFNO OZJV
S4T>?U7=;DA EFGOVOJHKLMNOPHJHQRFZ` OZJO
\D=8U7=;DA ]^_Z[`OJOWXYZOOIJVQRFNP HIJN
B>a83D7=;DA EFGP`HJZWXYZVOOJ[QRFNV H[JN
<23=>?2@A
d.efC3=g234Uh12iCj-56
78S3UA HkJHNHJV OJN
d.el42Ca84Uh12iCj-56
78S3UA HkNH O
-..e-5678S3U14C=;?
m2@a4A P[`N OH
-..e-5678S3Uno3D
p48T4?3=@4A PHJPOHJZ HHJH
-..e9??a2@S3U14C=;?
m2@a4A NPJHNPJI NHJk
-..e9??a2@9:482;4A NPJ`NZJI NkJO
-./-9??a2@S3U14C=;?
m2@a4A NPJHNPJI NHJk
-./-9??a2@9:482;4A NPJ`NZJI NkJO
-.-59??a2@S3U14C=;?
m2@a4A NPJHNPJI NHJk
-.-59??a2@9:482;4A NPJ`NZJINkJO
b2@=c>8?=2A
9??a2@S3U14C=;?23=>?
m2@a4A N[N[N`
qrstuvtwxswyz{|stw}{|~t|{||q|||u}{zt{y {|
!"#
$%&'()*+,(&& -'./.
010201000103
4567 089:;
<=7;5>7 4567 089:;<=7;5>7 4567 089:;
<=7;5>7
?56@AB5CD
E@;F6:@>GD HIJKLMNOPQRSLNNLOTUVIWP KNOX
Y7ZAB[:@>GD HIJNTMONQRSLPNMOK\V]WL KNOM
^G@;[:@>GD HIJ_PPOKQRSL_K_OTUVILN KMO_
EA`;6G:@>GD HIJWPPOMQRSWMK_O_UVILK KMOW
a5C@bA;B@5D
E@;F6:@>GD HIJKLMNOPQRSLNNLOTUVIWP KNOX
Y7ZAB[:@>GD HIJNTMONQRSLPNMOK\V]WL KNOM
^G@;[:@>GD HIJ_PPOKQRSL_K_OTUVILN KMO_
EA`;6G:@>GD HIJWPPOMQRSWMK_O_UVILK KMOW
?56@AB5CD
c1deF6@f567[g45hFi089
:;Y6[D WWOMNOK MOM
c1dj75F`;7[g45hFi089
:;Y6[D WWN M
011d089:;Y6[47F@>B
k5C`7D _TPL KP
011d089:;Y6[lm6G
n7;Z7B6@C7D NTOPKWOT WNOM
011d<BB`5CY6[47F@>B
k5C`7D oLNOX LLON
011d<BB`5C<=7;5>7D L_OLLMO_ pO_
0120<BB`5CY6[47F@>B
k5C`7D LNOPLNOX LLON
0120<BB`5C<=7;5>7D L_OLLMO_ pO_
0108<BB`5CY6[47F@>B
k5C`7D LNOPLNOX LLON
0108<BB`5C<=7;5>7D L_OLLMO_pO_
a5C@bA;B@5D
<BB`5CY6[47F@>B56@AB
k5C`7D LpLpLL
qrstuvtwxswyz{|stw}{|~t|{||q|||u}{zt{y {|
! !" #$%#&'(((! )
*
+, -
,# . !
/. !,"
,. "#",
/"!"0! !" !0-! ! +" #!0 .. !,. 1&- " #!,.
0! 0 " 2,-! +!",- 0 ##! !00 ,.
!"-/&-"-#,
! . -,0- &-
"" /."!#-
- ),-! . 0--
-. !3')),
-! . - -
-. ! -
-
!,-- &00"
!0 "#"! !!
,- &00"!#! ,-
!"# $%%
&'
()*+,-./0)10,2 3456 789:
;<;=>?<@A BC? DEFGD @CHC?
I*02 JK-LM N+MOP0M*2 IO+Q
RSTU
VWXYZ[
\US[SXY V]X]^_^ VS`]TX VSTX
abYZ
\SUcSXY]dS VTe]^_^
fYTX`TU`
gSh]TY]WX
i_^jSU Wk
lj[SUhTY]WX[
gSYScY]WX
m]^]Y
n[Y]^TYS`
o][p
qrqs rtuqtq v stswtxytxqyzrts v
qrqz rtwxztz {|}~ xtrwtxytxqxytz |
qrqq rtwxztw v tssqyytqyqytz v
qrqy rtwxqtq v strwtytwryuytz v
qrqr rtwx v wtyqtru ytz v
qry rtwxqtz {| wtwyrtzqtsqytz |
qry rtwxzty }|
twyqtqqtqzyytz |
qryu rtwxzty v wtwtsqtrqwytz v
qryw rtwxztr {| xtuyqtyqtsuzyytz |
qryx rtwxqtw {| xtstzytyzrytz |
qrys rtxztr {|{ tryqztrzrytu |
qryz rtxztx v yrtyyustryzrytr v
qryq rtuxqtw {| wtqywztqqytx |
qryy v r v
qryr v r v
qrr v r v
qrr v r v
qrru v r v
qrrw v r v
qrrx v r v
qrrs v r v
qrrz v r v
qrrq v r v
qrry v r v
qrrr v r v
y v r v
y v r v
yu v r v
yw v r v
yx v r v
ys v r v
yz v r v
yq v r v
yy v r v
yr v r v
y v r v
Td_S[ jSdW YZS m]^]Y Wk gSYScY]WX mWg T[[_^S` YW jS mWg VSTX[ TX` U][p[ [ZWX WXd kWU STU[ ]YZ `TYT ]X Tdd ^WXYZ[ ^STX[ YZSUS T[ ]X[_kk]c]SXY WU XW `TYT ThT]dTjdS YW `SYSU^]XS YZS hTd_S
APPENDIX B
PROJECT EMISSION CALCULATIONS
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
1 / 78
Westhaven II Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
3.2. Site Preparation (2025) - Mitigated
3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
2 / 78
3.4. Grading (2025) - Mitigated
3.5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
3.6. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
3.8. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated
3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
3.10. Building Construction (2027) - Mitigated
3.11. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
3.12. Paving (2027) - Mitigated
3.13. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
3.14. Architectural Coating (2027) - Mitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.1.2. Mitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
3 / 78
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
4.3.2. Mitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
4.4.2. Mitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
4.5.2. Mitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.6.2. Mitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.7.2. Mitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
4 / 78
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.8.2. Mitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.9.2. Mitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.2.2. Mitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
5 / 78
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.3.2. Mitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.9.2. Mitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
6 / 78
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.11.2. Mitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.12.2. Mitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.13.2. Mitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.14.2. Mitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.15.2. Mitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
7 / 78
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
8 / 78
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
9 / 78
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Westhaven II
Construction Start Date 4/1/2025
Operational Year 2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 1.90
Precipitation (days) 31.4
Location 36.598929457338244, -119.42927985096745
County Fresno
City Unincorporated
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2511
EDFZ 5
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.29
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Single Family
Housing
153 Dwelling Unit 34.0 298,350 1,792,067 — 490 —
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
10 / 78
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-10-A Water Exposed Surfaces
Construction C-10-C Water Unpaved Construction Roads
Construction C-11 Limit Vehicle Speeds on Unpaved Roads
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 53.5 53.5 31.7 30.8 0.06 1.37 19.8 21.1 1.26 10.1 11.4 — 6,720 6,720 0.27 0.07 1.81 6,745 Mit. 53.5 53.5 31.7 30.8 0.06 1.37 7.76 9.13 1.26 3.96 5.22 — 6,720 6,720 0.27 0.07 1.81 6,745 %
Reduced
— — — — — — 61% 57% — 61% 54% — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 53.5 53.5 11.0 14.9 0.02 0.43 0.35 0.79 0.40 0.09 0.49 — 2,910 2,910 0.12 0.07 0.05 2,932 Mit. 53.5 53.5 11.0 14.9 0.02 0.43 0.35 0.79 0.40 0.09 0.49 — 2,910 2,910 0.12 0.07 0.05 2,932 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 5.78 5.68 8.38 10.5 0.02 0.35 2.32 2.67 0.32 1.03 1.35 — 2,078 2,078 0.08 0.05 0.50 2,094 Mit. 5.78 5.68 8.38 10.5 0.02 0.35 0.98 1.32 0.32 0.42 0.74 — 2,078 2,078 0.08 0.05 0.50 2,094 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
11 / 78
%
Reduced
— — — — — — 58% 51% — 59% 45% — — — — — — —
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.05 1.04 1.53 1.91 < 0.005 0.06 0.42 0.49 0.06 0.19 0.25 — 344 344 0.01 0.01 0.08 347 Mit. 1.05 1.04 1.53 1.91 < 0.005 0.06 0.18 0.24 0.06 0.08 0.13 — 344 344 0.01 0.01 0.08 347 %
Reduced
— — — — — — 58% 51% — 59% 45% — — — — — — —
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 4.02 3.39 31.7 30.8 0.06 1.37 19.8 21.1 1.26 10.1 11.4 — 6,720 6,720 0.27 0.07 1.81 6,745 2026 1.53 1.30 10.3 15.0 0.02 0.38 0.35 0.74 0.35 0.09 0.44 — 2,935 2,935 0.11 0.07 1.63 2,959 2027 53.5 53.5 9.82 14.8 0.02 0.34 0.35 0.69 0.31 0.09 0.40 — 2,924 2,924 0.11 0.06 1.46 2,947 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.59 1.34 11.0 14.9 0.02 0.43 0.35 0.79 0.40 0.09 0.49 — 2,910 2,910 0.12 0.07 0.05 2,932 2026 1.50 1.28 10.4 14.6 0.02 0.38 0.35 0.74 0.35 0.09 0.44 — 2,899 2,899 0.11 0.07 0.04 2,921 2027 53.5 53.5 9.86 14.5 0.02 0.34 0.35 0.69 0.31 0.09 0.40 — 2,888 2,888 0.11 0.06 0.04 2,910 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.13 0.96 8.38 9.30 0.02 0.35 2.32 2.67 0.32 1.03 1.35 — 1,917 1,917 0.08 0.03 0.25 1,927 2026 1.08 0.91 7.38 10.5 0.02 0.27 0.25 0.52 0.25 0.06 0.31 — 2,078 2,078 0.08 0.05 0.50 2,094 2027 5.78 5.68 4.54 6.72 0.01 0.16 0.15 0.31 0.15 0.04 0.18 — 1,288 1,288 0.05 0.03 0.26 1,298 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.21 0.17 1.53 1.70 < 0.005 0.06 0.42 0.49 0.06 0.19 0.25 — 317 317 0.01 < 0.005 0.04 319 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
12 / 78
2026 0.20 0.17 1.35 1.91 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.01 0.06 — 344 344 0.01 0.01 0.08 347 2027 1.05 1.04 0.83 1.23 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.03 — 213 213 0.01 < 0.005 0.04 215
2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 4.02 3.39 31.7 30.8 0.06 1.37 7.76 9.13 1.26 3.96 5.22 — 6,720 6,720 0.27 0.07 1.81 6,745 2026 1.53 1.30 10.3 15.0 0.02 0.38 0.35 0.74 0.35 0.09 0.44 — 2,935 2,935 0.11 0.07 1.63 2,959 2027 53.5 53.5 9.82 14.8 0.02 0.34 0.35 0.69 0.31 0.09 0.40 — 2,924 2,924 0.11 0.06 1.46 2,947 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.59 1.34 11.0 14.9 0.02 0.43 0.35 0.79 0.40 0.09 0.49 — 2,910 2,910 0.12 0.07 0.05 2,932 2026 1.50 1.28 10.4 14.6 0.02 0.38 0.35 0.74 0.35 0.09 0.44 — 2,899 2,899 0.11 0.07 0.04 2,921 2027 53.5 53.5 9.86 14.5 0.02 0.34 0.35 0.69 0.31 0.09 0.40 — 2,888 2,888 0.11 0.06 0.04 2,910 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.13 0.96 8.38 9.30 0.02 0.35 0.98 1.32 0.32 0.42 0.74 — 1,917 1,917 0.08 0.03 0.25 1,927 2026 1.08 0.91 7.38 10.5 0.02 0.27 0.25 0.52 0.25 0.06 0.31 — 2,078 2,078 0.08 0.05 0.50 2,094 2027 5.78 5.68 4.54 6.72 0.01 0.16 0.15 0.31 0.15 0.04 0.18 — 1,288 1,288 0.05 0.03 0.26 1,298 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.21 0.17 1.53 1.70 < 0.005 0.06 0.18 0.24 0.06 0.08 0.13 — 317 317 0.01 < 0.005 0.04 319 2026 0.20 0.17 1.35 1.91 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.01 0.06 — 344 344 0.01 0.01 0.08 347 2027 1.05 1.04 0.83 1.23 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.03 — 213 213 0.01 < 0.005 0.04 215
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
13 / 78
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 13.0 12.5 4.70 42.6 0.08 0.17 5.80 5.97 0.16 1.47 1.63 85.1 9,616 9,701 9.25 0.38 24.4 10,070 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 11.5 11.1 5.12 29.8 0.07 0.16 5.80 5.96 0.16 1.47 1.63 85.1 8,938 9,023 9.32 0.41 2.71 9,381 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 11.9 11.5 4.82 33.1 0.07 0.17 5.55 5.72 0.16 1.40 1.57 85.1 8,992 9,077 9.27 0.39 11.5 9,436 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.17 2.09 0.88 6.04 0.01 0.03 1.01 1.04 0.03 0.26 0.29 14.1 1,489 1,503 1.54 0.06 1.91 1,562
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 5.07 4.72 3.11 33.3 0.07 0.04 5.80 5.84 0.04 1.47 1.51 — 6,831 6,831 0.41 0.33 22.3 6,963 Area 7.71 7.67 0.08 8.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 23.2 23.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.3 Energy 0.18 0.09 1.50 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 2,707 2,707 0.30 0.02 — 2,720 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 11.8 54.2 66.0 1.22 0.03 — 105 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 73.3 0.00 73.3 7.33 0.00 — 256 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.14 2.14
Total 13.0 12.5 4.70 42.6 0.08 0.17 5.80 5.97 0.16 1.47 1.63 85.1 9,616 9,701 9.25 0.38 24.4 10,070 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
14 / 78
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.46 4.09 3.61 29.2 0.06 0.04 5.80 5.84 0.04 1.47 1.51 — 6,177 6,177 0.47 0.36 0.58 6,297 Area 6.90 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.18 0.09 1.50 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 2,707 2,707 0.30 0.02 — 2,720 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 11.8 54.2 66.0 1.22 0.03 — 105 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 73.3 0.00 73.3 7.33 0.00 — 256 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.14 2.14
Total 11.5 11.1 5.12 29.8 0.07 0.16 5.80 5.96 0.16 1.47 1.63 85.1 8,938 9,023 9.32 0.41 2.71 9,381 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.44 4.09 3.28 28.2 0.06 0.04 5.55 5.59 0.04 1.40 1.44 — 6,219 6,219 0.43 0.34 9.40 6,340 Area 7.30 7.28 0.04 4.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 11.4 11.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.5 Energy 0.18 0.09 1.50 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 2,707 2,707 0.30 0.02 — 2,720 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 11.8 54.2 66.0 1.22 0.03 — 105 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 73.3 0.00 73.3 7.33 0.00 — 256 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.14 2.14
Total 11.9 11.5 4.82 33.1 0.07 0.17 5.55 5.72 0.16 1.40 1.57 85.1 8,992 9,077 9.27 0.39 11.5 9,436 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.81 0.75 0.60 5.14 0.01 0.01 1.01 1.02 0.01 0.26 0.26 — 1,030 1,030 0.07 0.06 1.56 1,050 Area 1.33 1.33 0.01 0.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 1.89 1.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.90 Energy 0.03 0.02 0.27 0.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 448 448 0.05 < 0.005 — 450 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 1.96 8.98 10.9 0.20 < 0.005 — 17.5 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 12.1 0.00 12.1 1.21 0.00 — 42.5 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.35 0.35
Total 2.17 2.09 0.88 6.04 0.01 0.03 1.01 1.04 0.03 0.26 0.29 14.1 1,489 1,503 1.54 0.06 1.91 1,562
2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
15 / 78
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 5.07 4.72 3.11 33.3 0.07 0.04 5.80 5.84 0.04 1.47 1.51 — 6,831 6,831 0.41 0.33 22.3 6,963 Area 7.71 7.67 0.08 8.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 23.2 23.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.3 Energy 0.18 0.09 1.50 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 2,707 2,707 0.30 0.02 — 2,720 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 11.8 54.2 66.0 1.22 0.03 — 105 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 73.3 0.00 73.3 7.33 0.00 — 256 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.14 2.14
Total 13.0 12.5 4.70 42.6 0.08 0.17 5.80 5.97 0.16 1.47 1.63 85.1 9,616 9,701 9.25 0.38 24.4 10,070 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.46 4.09 3.61 29.2 0.06 0.04 5.80 5.84 0.04 1.47 1.51 — 6,177 6,177 0.47 0.36 0.58 6,297 Area 6.90 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.18 0.09 1.50 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 2,707 2,707 0.30 0.02 — 2,720 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 11.8 54.2 66.0 1.22 0.03 — 105 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 73.3 0.00 73.3 7.33 0.00 — 256 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.14 2.14
Total 11.5 11.1 5.12 29.8 0.07 0.16 5.80 5.96 0.16 1.47 1.63 85.1 8,938 9,023 9.32 0.41 2.71 9,381 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.44 4.09 3.28 28.2 0.06 0.04 5.55 5.59 0.04 1.40 1.44 — 6,219 6,219 0.43 0.34 9.40 6,340 Area 7.30 7.28 0.04 4.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 11.4 11.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.5 Energy 0.18 0.09 1.50 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 2,707 2,707 0.30 0.02 — 2,720 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 11.8 54.2 66.0 1.22 0.03 — 105 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 73.3 0.00 73.3 7.33 0.00 — 256 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.14 2.14
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
16 / 78
Total 11.9 11.5 4.82 33.1 0.07 0.17 5.55 5.72 0.16 1.40 1.57 85.1 8,992 9,077 9.27 0.39 11.5 9,436 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.81 0.75 0.60 5.14 0.01 0.01 1.01 1.02 0.01 0.26 0.26 — 1,030 1,030 0.07 0.06 1.56 1,050 Area 1.33 1.33 0.01 0.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 1.89 1.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.90 Energy 0.03 0.02 0.27 0.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 448 448 0.05 < 0.005 — 450 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 1.96 8.98 10.9 0.20 < 0.005 — 17.5 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 12.1 0.00 12.1 1.21 0.00 — 42.5 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.35 0.35
Total 2.17 2.09 0.88 6.04 0.01 0.03 1.01 1.04 0.03 0.26 0.29 14.1 1,489 1,503 1.54 0.06 1.91 1,562
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
3.94 3.31 31.6 30.2 0.05 1.37 — 1.37 1.26 — 1.26 — 5,295 5,295 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 19.7 19.7 — 10.1 10.1 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
17 / 78
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.22 0.18 1.73 1.65 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 290 290 0.01 < 0.005 — 291 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.08 1.08 — 0.55 0.55 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.04 0.03 0.32 0.30 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 48.0 48.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 48.2 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.20 0.20 — 0.10 0.10 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 106 106 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.40 108 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.34 5.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.43 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
18 / 78
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.88 0.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.90 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.2. Site Preparation (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
3.94 3.31 31.6 30.2 0.05 1.37 — 1.37 1.26 — 1.26 — 5,295 5,295 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 7.67 7.67 — 3.94 3.94 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.22 0.18 1.73 1.65 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 290 290 0.01 < 0.005 — 291 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
19 / 78
Dust — — — — — — 0.42 0.42 — 0.22 0.22 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.04 0.03 0.32 0.30 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 48.0 48.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 48.2 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.08 0.08 — 0.04 0.04 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 106 106 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.40 108 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.34 5.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.43 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.88 0.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.90 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
20 / 78
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
3.80 3.20 29.7 28.3 0.06 1.23 — 1.23 1.14 — 1.14 — 6,599 6,599 0.27 0.05 — 6,622 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 9.20 9.20 — 3.65 3.65 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.47 0.39 3.66 3.49 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.14 — 0.14 — 814 814 0.03 0.01 — 816 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.13 1.13 — 0.45 0.45 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
21 / 78
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.09 0.07 0.67 0.64 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 135 135 0.01 < 0.005 — 135 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.21 0.21 — 0.08 0.08 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.09 0.05 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 121 121 < 0.005 0.01 0.45 123 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.7 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 14.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.28 2.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.31 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.4. Grading (2025) - Mitigated
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
22 / 78
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
3.80 3.20 29.7 28.3 0.06 1.23 — 1.23 1.14 — 1.14 — 6,599 6,599 0.27 0.05 — 6,622 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 3.59 3.59 — 1.42 1.42 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.47 0.39 3.66 3.49 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.14 — 0.14 — 814 814 0.03 0.01 — 816 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.44 0.44 — 0.18 0.18 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.09 0.07 0.67 0.64 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 135 135 0.01 < 0.005 — 135 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
23 / 78
Dust — — — — — — 0.08 0.08 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.09 0.05 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 121 121 < 0.005 0.01 0.45 123 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.7 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 14.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.28 2.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.31 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
24 / 78
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.37 0.31 2.84 3.55 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 — 652 652 0.03 0.01 — 654 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.07 0.06 0.52 0.65 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 108 108 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 108 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
25 / 78
Worker 0.25 0.24 0.13 2.05 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 334 334 0.01 0.01 1.25 340 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.35 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 215 215 0.01 0.03 0.56 225 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.22 0.21 0.15 1.66 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 296 296 0.01 0.01 0.03 301 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.37 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 216 216 0.01 0.03 0.01 225 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 83.5 83.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 84.9 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 58.6 58.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 61.2 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.8 13.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 14.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.70 9.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 10.1 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.6. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
26 / 78
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.37 0.31 2.84 3.55 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 — 652 652 0.03 0.01 — 654 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.07 0.06 0.52 0.65 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 108 108 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 108 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.25 0.24 0.13 2.05 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 334 334 0.01 0.01 1.25 340 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.35 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 215 215 0.01 0.03 0.56 225 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
27 / 78
Worker 0.22 0.21 0.15 1.66 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 296 296 0.01 0.01 0.03 301 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.37 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 216 216 0.01 0.03 0.01 225 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 83.5 83.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 84.9 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 58.6 58.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 61.2 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.8 13.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 14.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.70 9.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 10.1 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
28 / 78
Off-Roa 1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 d
Equipm
ent
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.91 0.77 7.04 9.26 0.02 0.27 — 0.27 0.25 — 0.25 — 1,712 1,712 0.07 0.01 — 1,718 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.17 0.14 1.28 1.69 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 283 283 0.01 < 0.005 — 284 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.23 0.22 0.11 1.89 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 327 327 0.01 0.01 1.14 333 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.33 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 211 211 0.01 0.03 0.49 221 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.20 0.19 0.14 1.53 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 290 290 0.01 0.01 0.03 295 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.36 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 212 212 0.01 0.03 0.01 221 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
29 / 78
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Worker 0.15 0.14 0.09 1.11 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 215 215 0.01 0.01 0.35 218 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.25 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 151 151 < 0.005 0.02 0.15 158 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 35.6 35.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 36.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 25.0 25.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 26.1 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.8. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
30 / 78
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.91 0.77 7.04 9.26 0.02 0.27 — 0.27 0.25 — 0.25 — 1,712 1,712 0.07 0.01 — 1,718 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.17 0.14 1.28 1.69 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 283 283 0.01 < 0.005 — 284 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.23 0.22 0.11 1.89 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 327 327 0.01 0.01 1.14 333 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.33 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 211 211 0.01 0.03 0.49 221 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.20 0.19 0.14 1.53 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 290 290 0.01 0.01 0.03 295 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.36 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 212 212 0.01 0.03 0.01 221 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.14 0.09 1.11 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 215 215 0.01 0.01 0.35 218 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.25 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 151 151 < 0.005 0.02 0.15 158 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
31 / 78
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 35.6 35.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 36.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 25.0 25.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 26.1 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.47 0.40 3.62 4.99 0.01 0.13 — 0.13 0.12 — 0.12 — 924 924 0.04 0.01 — 927 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
32 / 78
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.09 0.07 0.66 0.91 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 153 153 0.01 < 0.005 — 154 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.21 0.21 0.10 1.74 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 320 320 0.01 0.01 1.03 325 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.32 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 207 207 0.01 0.03 0.43 216 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.19 0.17 0.13 1.41 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 284 284 0.01 0.01 0.03 289 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.35 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 207 207 0.01 0.03 0.01 216 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 114 114 < 0.005 0.01 0.17 115 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.13 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 79.7 79.7 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 83.3 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.8 18.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 19.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.2 13.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 13.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.10. Building Construction (2027) - Mitigated
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
33 / 78
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.47 0.40 3.62 4.99 0.01 0.13 — 0.13 0.12 — 0.12 — 924 924 0.04 0.01 — 927 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.09 0.07 0.66 0.91 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 153 153 0.01 < 0.005 — 154 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
34 / 78
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.21 0.21 0.10 1.74 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 320 320 0.01 0.01 1.03 325 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.32 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 207 207 0.01 0.03 0.43 216 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.19 0.17 0.13 1.41 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 284 284 0.01 0.01 0.03 289 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.35 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 207 207 0.01 0.03 0.01 216 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 114 114 < 0.005 0.01 0.17 115 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.13 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 79.7 79.7 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 83.3 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.8 18.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 19.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.2 13.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 13.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.11. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
35 / 78
Off-Roa 0.88 0.74 6.94 9.95 0.01 0.30 — 0.30 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 d
Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.08 0.07 0.67 0.95 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 145 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.02 0.01 0.12 0.17 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.1 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 87.2 87.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.28 88.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
36 / 78
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.69 7.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.82 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.27 1.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.29 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.12. Paving (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.88 0.74 6.94 9.95 0.01 0.30 — 0.30 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.08 0.07 0.67 0.95 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 145 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
37 / 78
Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.02 0.01 0.12 0.17 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.1 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 87.2 87.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.28 88.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.69 7.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.82 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.27 1.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.29 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.13. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
38 / 78
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
53.4 53.4 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
53.4 53.4 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.08 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 12.8 12.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.8 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
39 / 78
Architect 5.12 5.12 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Coating
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.12 2.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.13 Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.93 0.93 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 64.0 64.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21 65.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 56.9 56.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 57.8 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.65 5.65 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.74 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
40 / 78
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.93 0.93 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.95 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.14. Architectural Coating (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
53.4 53.4 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
53.4 53.4 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
41 / 78
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.08 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 12.8 12.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.8 Architect
ural
Coating
s
5.12 5.12 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.12 2.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.13 Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.93 0.93 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 64.0 64.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21 65.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 56.9 56.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 57.8 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
42 / 78
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.65 5.65 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.74 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.93 0.93 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.95 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
5.07 4.72 3.11 33.3 0.07 0.04 5.80 5.84 0.04 1.47 1.51 — 6,831 6,831 0.41 0.33 22.3 6,963 Total 5.07 4.72 3.11 33.3 0.07 0.04 5.80 5.84 0.04 1.47 1.51 — 6,831 6,831 0.41 0.33 22.3 6,963 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
4.46 4.09 3.61 29.2 0.06 0.04 5.80 5.84 0.04 1.47 1.51 — 6,177 6,177 0.47 0.36 0.58 6,297 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
43 / 78
Total 4.46 4.09 3.61 29.2 0.06 0.04 5.80 5.84 0.04 1.47 1.51 — 6,177 6,177 0.47 0.36 0.58 6,297 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
0.81 0.75 0.60 5.14 0.01 0.01 1.01 1.02 0.01 0.26 0.26 — 1,030 1,030 0.07 0.06 1.56 1,050 Total 0.81 0.75 0.60 5.14 0.01 0.01 1.01 1.02 0.01 0.26 0.26 — 1,030 1,030 0.07 0.06 1.56 1,050
4.1.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
5.07 4.72 3.11 33.3 0.07 0.04 5.80 5.84 0.04 1.47 1.51 — 6,831 6,831 0.41 0.33 22.3 6,963 Total 5.07 4.72 3.11 33.3 0.07 0.04 5.80 5.84 0.04 1.47 1.51 — 6,831 6,831 0.41 0.33 22.3 6,963 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
4.46 4.09 3.61 29.2 0.06 0.04 5.80 5.84 0.04 1.47 1.51 — 6,177 6,177 0.47 0.36 0.58 6,297 Total 4.46 4.09 3.61 29.2 0.06 0.04 5.80 5.84 0.04 1.47 1.51 — 6,177 6,177 0.47 0.36 0.58 6,297 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
0.81 0.75 0.60 5.14 0.01 0.01 1.01 1.02 0.01 0.26 0.26 — 1,030 1,030 0.07 0.06 1.56 1,050 Total 0.81 0.75 0.60 5.14 0.01 0.01 1.01 1.02 0.01 0.26 0.26 — 1,030 1,030 0.07 0.06 1.56 1,050
4.2. Energy
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
44 / 78
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 799 799 0.13 0.02 — 807
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 799 799 0.13 0.02 — 807
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 799 799 0.13 0.02 — 807
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 799 799 0.13 0.02 — 807
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 132 132 0.02 < 0.005 — 134
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 132 132 0.02 < 0.005 — 134
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 799 799 0.13 0.02 — 807
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
45 / 78
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 799 799 0.13 0.02 — 807
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 799 799 0.13 0.02 — 807
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 799 799 0.13 0.02 — 807
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 132 132 0.02 < 0.005 — 134
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 132 132 0.02 < 0.005 — 134
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
0.18 0.09 1.50 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 1,908 1,908 0.17 < 0.005 — 1,913 Total 0.18 0.09 1.50 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 1,908 1,908 0.17 < 0.005 — 1,913 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
0.18 0.09 1.50 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 1,908 1,908 0.17 < 0.005 — 1,913 Total 0.18 0.09 1.50 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 1,908 1,908 0.17 < 0.005 — 1,913 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
46 / 78
Single 0.03 0.02 0.27 0.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 316 316 0.03 < 0.005 — 317 Family
Housing
Total 0.03 0.02 0.27 0.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 316 316 0.03 < 0.005 — 317
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
0.18 0.09 1.50 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 1,908 1,908 0.17 < 0.005 — 1,913 Total 0.18 0.09 1.50 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 1,908 1,908 0.17 < 0.005 — 1,913 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
0.18 0.09 1.50 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 1,908 1,908 0.17 < 0.005 — 1,913 Total 0.18 0.09 1.50 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 1,908 1,908 0.17 < 0.005 — 1,913 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
0.03 0.02 0.27 0.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 316 316 0.03 < 0.005 — 317 Total 0.03 0.02 0.27 0.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 316 316 0.03 < 0.005 — 317
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
47 / 78
Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s
6.38 6.38 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.51 0.51 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
0.81 0.77 0.08 8.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 23.2 23.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.3 Total 7.71 7.67 0.08 8.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 23.2 23.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.3 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s
6.38 6.38 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.51 0.51 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 6.90 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
48 / 78
Consum 1.17 1.17 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
er
Product
s
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.09 0.09 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
0.07 0.07 0.01 0.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.89 1.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.90 Total 1.33 1.33 0.01 0.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 1.89 1.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.90
4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s
6.38 6.38 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.51 0.51 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
0.81 0.77 0.08 8.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 23.2 23.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.3 Total 7.71 7.67 0.08 8.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 23.2 23.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.3 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
49 / 78
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s
6.38 6.38 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.51 0.51 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 6.90 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s
1.17 1.17 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.09 0.09 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
0.07 0.07 0.01 0.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.89 1.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.90 Total 1.33 1.33 0.01 0.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 1.89 1.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.90
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
50 / 78
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 11.8 54.2 66.0 1.22 0.03 — 105
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 11.8 54.2 66.0 1.22 0.03 — 105 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 11.8 54.2 66.0 1.22 0.03 — 105
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 11.8 54.2 66.0 1.22 0.03 — 105 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.96 8.98 10.9 0.20 < 0.005 — 17.5 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1.96 8.98 10.9 0.20 < 0.005 — 17.5
4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 11.8 54.2 66.0 1.22 0.03 — 105
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 11.8 54.2 66.0 1.22 0.03 — 105 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
51 / 78
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 11.8 54.2 66.0 1.22 0.03 — 105
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 11.8 54.2 66.0 1.22 0.03 — 105 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.96 8.98 10.9 0.20 < 0.005 — 17.5 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1.96 8.98 10.9 0.20 < 0.005 — 17.5
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 73.3 0.00 73.3 7.33 0.00 — 256
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 73.3 0.00 73.3 7.33 0.00 — 256 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 73.3 0.00 73.3 7.33 0.00 — 256
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 73.3 0.00 73.3 7.33 0.00 — 256 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 12.1 0.00 12.1 1.21 0.00 — 42.5
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
52 / 78
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 12.1 0.00 12.1 1.21 0.00 — 42.5
4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 73.3 0.00 73.3 7.33 0.00 — 256
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 73.3 0.00 73.3 7.33 0.00 — 256 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 73.3 0.00 73.3 7.33 0.00 — 256
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 73.3 0.00 73.3 7.33 0.00 — 256 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 12.1 0.00 12.1 1.21 0.00 — 42.5
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 12.1 0.00 12.1 1.21 0.00 — 42.5
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
53 / 78
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.14 2.14
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.14 2.14
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.14 2.14
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.14 2.14
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.35 0.35
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.35 0.35
4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.14 2.14
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.14 2.14
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
54 / 78
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.14 2.14
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.14 2.14
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.35 0.35
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.35 0.35
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
55 / 78
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
56 / 78
Equipm TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e ent
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9.2. Mitigated
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
57 / 78
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
58 / 78
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
59 / 78
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
60 / 78
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
61 / 78
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
Annual——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
5. Activity Data
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
62 / 78
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 5/14/2025 6/11/2025 5.00 20.0 — Grading Grading 6/12/2025 8/14/2025 5.00 45.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 8/15/2025 7/16/2027 5.00 500 — Paving Paving 7/17/2027 9/4/2027 5.00 35.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 9/5/2027 10/24/2027 5.00 35.0 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
63 / 78
Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
64 / 78
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 55.1 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 16.4 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 11.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
65 / 78
Site Preparation————
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor— 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck—— HHDT
Grading————
Grading Worker 20.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor— 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck—— HHDT
Building Construction————
Building Construction Worker 55.1 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 16.4 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck—— HHDT
Paving————
Paving Worker 15.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor— 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck—— HHDT
Architectural Coating————
Architectural Coating Worker 11.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor— 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck—— HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
66 / 78
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 604,159 201,386 0.00 0.00 —
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation — — 30.0 0.00 —
Grading — — 135 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.69
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Single Family Housing 1.69 0%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
67 / 78
2027 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Single Family
Housing
1,444 1,460 1,308 520,874 8,184 8,270 7,412 2,951,279
5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Single Family
Housing
1,444 1,460 1,308 520,874 8,184 8,270 7,412 2,951,279
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Single Family Housing —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 176
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
68 / 78
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Single Family Housing —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 176
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
604158.75 201,386 0.00 0.00 —
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
69 / 78
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 1,430,027 204 0.0330 0.0040 5,953,585
5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 1,430,027 204 0.0330 0.0040 5,953,585
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 6,165,288 30,066,767
5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 6,165,288 30,066,767
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
70 / 78
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 136 —
5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 136 —
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Single Family Housing Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Single Family Housing Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
71 / 78
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
72 / 78
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 30.1 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 1.25 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
73 / 78
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 4 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding 0 0 0 N/A
Drought 0 0 0 N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 4 1 1 4
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
74 / 78
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding 1 1 1 2
Drought 1 1 1 2
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 91.1
AQ-PM 94.4
AQ-DPM 13.4
Drinking Water 97.2
Lead Risk Housing 45.4
Pesticides 94.3
Toxic Releases 45.8
Traffic 3.85
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 50.3
Groundwater 25.1
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
75 / 78
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 44.7
Impaired Water Bodies 23.9
Solid Waste 63.7
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 74.0
Cardio-vascular 72.9
Low Birth Weights 47.1
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 56.0
Housing 24.9
Linguistic 10.4
Poverty 38.9
Unemployment 26.9
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 59.39946105
Employed 65.58449891
Median HI 51.39227512
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 40.20274605
High school enrollment 24.3295265
Preschool enrollment 5.941229308
Transportation —
Auto Access 95.6242782
Active commuting 22.0967535
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
76 / 78
Social —
2-parent households 70.60182215
Voting 50.27588862
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 86.74451431
Park access 19.196715
Retail density 3.708456307
Supermarket access 39.16335173
Tree canopy 77.38996535
Housing —
Homeownership 84.84537405
Housing habitability 90.42730656
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 37.22571539 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 95.50878994
Uncrowded housing 71.88502502
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 42.7691518
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 33.9
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 48.8
Cognitively Disabled 22.1
Physically Disabled 18.7
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
77 / 78
Heart Attack ER Admissions 44.6
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 73.7
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 41.8
Elderly 29.3
English Speaking 51.1
Foreign-born 35.7
Outdoor Workers 8.7
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity—
Impervious Surface Cover 92.0
Traffic Density 4.5
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices—
Hardship 59.1
Other Decision Support—
2016 Voting 45.6
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
78 / 78
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 64.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 48.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Yes Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Acreage adjusted to match actual site
Construction: Construction Phases Demolition removed
Operations: Fleet Mix SJVAPCD Residential Fleet Mix for Year 2026 Operations: Hearths No Hearths
APPENDIX C
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT MODELING FILES (ELECTRONIC)
APPENDIX B
PROJECT EMISSION CALCULATIONS
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
1 / 78
Westhaven II Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
3.2. Site Preparation (2025) - Mitigated
3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
2 / 78
3.4. Grading (2025) - Mitigated
3.5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
3.6. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
3.8. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated
3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
3.10. Building Construction (2027) - Mitigated
3.11. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
3.12. Paving (2027) - Mitigated
3.13. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
3.14. Architectural Coating (2027) - Mitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.1.2. Mitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
3 / 78
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
4.3.2. Mitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
4.4.2. Mitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
4.5.2. Mitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.6.2. Mitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.7.2. Mitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
4 / 78
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.8.2. Mitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.9.2. Mitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.2.2. Mitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
5 / 78
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.3.2. Mitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.9.2. Mitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
6 / 78
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.11.2. Mitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.12.2. Mitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.13.2. Mitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.14.2. Mitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.15.2. Mitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
7 / 78
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
8 / 78
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
9 / 78
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Westhaven II
Construction Start Date 4/1/2025
Operational Year 2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 1.90
Precipitation (days) 31.4
Location 36.598929457338244, -119.42927985096745
County Fresno
City Unincorporated
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2511
EDFZ 5
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.29
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Single Family
Housing
153 Dwelling Unit 34.0 298,350 1,792,067 — 490 —
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
10 / 78
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-10-A Water Exposed Surfaces
Construction C-10-C Water Unpaved Construction Roads
Construction C-11 Limit Vehicle Speeds on Unpaved Roads
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 53.5 53.5 31.7 30.8 0.06 1.37 19.8 21.1 1.26 10.1 11.4 — 6,720 6,720 0.27 0.07 1.81 6,745 Mit. 53.5 53.5 31.7 30.8 0.06 1.37 7.76 9.13 1.26 3.96 5.22 — 6,720 6,720 0.27 0.07 1.81 6,745 %
Reduced
— — — — — — 61% 57% — 61% 54% — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 53.5 53.5 11.0 14.9 0.02 0.43 0.35 0.79 0.40 0.09 0.49 — 2,910 2,910 0.12 0.07 0.05 2,932 Mit. 53.5 53.5 11.0 14.9 0.02 0.43 0.35 0.79 0.40 0.09 0.49 — 2,910 2,910 0.12 0.07 0.05 2,932 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 5.78 5.68 8.38 10.5 0.02 0.35 2.32 2.67 0.32 1.03 1.35 — 2,078 2,078 0.08 0.05 0.50 2,094 Mit. 5.78 5.68 8.38 10.5 0.02 0.35 0.98 1.32 0.32 0.42 0.74 — 2,078 2,078 0.08 0.05 0.50 2,094 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
11 / 78
%
Reduced
— — — — — — 58% 51% — 59% 45% — — — — — — —
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.05 1.04 1.53 1.91 < 0.005 0.06 0.42 0.49 0.06 0.19 0.25 — 344 344 0.01 0.01 0.08 347 Mit. 1.05 1.04 1.53 1.91 < 0.005 0.06 0.18 0.24 0.06 0.08 0.13 — 344 344 0.01 0.01 0.08 347 %
Reduced
— — — — — — 58% 51% — 59% 45% — — — — — — —
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 4.02 3.39 31.7 30.8 0.06 1.37 19.8 21.1 1.26 10.1 11.4 — 6,720 6,720 0.27 0.07 1.81 6,745 2026 1.53 1.30 10.3 15.0 0.02 0.38 0.35 0.74 0.35 0.09 0.44 — 2,935 2,935 0.11 0.07 1.63 2,959 2027 53.5 53.5 9.82 14.8 0.02 0.34 0.35 0.69 0.31 0.09 0.40 — 2,924 2,924 0.11 0.06 1.46 2,947 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.59 1.34 11.0 14.9 0.02 0.43 0.35 0.79 0.40 0.09 0.49 — 2,910 2,910 0.12 0.07 0.05 2,932 2026 1.50 1.28 10.4 14.6 0.02 0.38 0.35 0.74 0.35 0.09 0.44 — 2,899 2,899 0.11 0.07 0.04 2,921 2027 53.5 53.5 9.86 14.5 0.02 0.34 0.35 0.69 0.31 0.09 0.40 — 2,888 2,888 0.11 0.06 0.04 2,910 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.13 0.96 8.38 9.30 0.02 0.35 2.32 2.67 0.32 1.03 1.35 — 1,917 1,917 0.08 0.03 0.25 1,927 2026 1.08 0.91 7.38 10.5 0.02 0.27 0.25 0.52 0.25 0.06 0.31 — 2,078 2,078 0.08 0.05 0.50 2,094 2027 5.78 5.68 4.54 6.72 0.01 0.16 0.15 0.31 0.15 0.04 0.18 — 1,288 1,288 0.05 0.03 0.26 1,298 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.21 0.17 1.53 1.70 < 0.005 0.06 0.42 0.49 0.06 0.19 0.25 — 317 317 0.01 < 0.005 0.04 319 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
12 / 78
2026 0.20 0.17 1.35 1.91 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.01 0.06 — 344 344 0.01 0.01 0.08 347 2027 1.05 1.04 0.83 1.23 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.03 — 213 213 0.01 < 0.005 0.04 215
2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 4.02 3.39 31.7 30.8 0.06 1.37 7.76 9.13 1.26 3.96 5.22 — 6,720 6,720 0.27 0.07 1.81 6,745 2026 1.53 1.30 10.3 15.0 0.02 0.38 0.35 0.74 0.35 0.09 0.44 — 2,935 2,935 0.11 0.07 1.63 2,959 2027 53.5 53.5 9.82 14.8 0.02 0.34 0.35 0.69 0.31 0.09 0.40 — 2,924 2,924 0.11 0.06 1.46 2,947 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.59 1.34 11.0 14.9 0.02 0.43 0.35 0.79 0.40 0.09 0.49 — 2,910 2,910 0.12 0.07 0.05 2,932 2026 1.50 1.28 10.4 14.6 0.02 0.38 0.35 0.74 0.35 0.09 0.44 — 2,899 2,899 0.11 0.07 0.04 2,921 2027 53.5 53.5 9.86 14.5 0.02 0.34 0.35 0.69 0.31 0.09 0.40 — 2,888 2,888 0.11 0.06 0.04 2,910 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.13 0.96 8.38 9.30 0.02 0.35 0.98 1.32 0.32 0.42 0.74 — 1,917 1,917 0.08 0.03 0.25 1,927 2026 1.08 0.91 7.38 10.5 0.02 0.27 0.25 0.52 0.25 0.06 0.31 — 2,078 2,078 0.08 0.05 0.50 2,094 2027 5.78 5.68 4.54 6.72 0.01 0.16 0.15 0.31 0.15 0.04 0.18 — 1,288 1,288 0.05 0.03 0.26 1,298 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.21 0.17 1.53 1.70 < 0.005 0.06 0.18 0.24 0.06 0.08 0.13 — 317 317 0.01 < 0.005 0.04 319 2026 0.20 0.17 1.35 1.91 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.01 0.06 — 344 344 0.01 0.01 0.08 347 2027 1.05 1.04 0.83 1.23 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.03 — 213 213 0.01 < 0.005 0.04 215
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
13 / 78
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 13.0 12.5 4.70 42.6 0.08 0.17 5.80 5.97 0.16 1.47 1.63 85.1 9,616 9,701 9.25 0.38 24.4 10,070 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 11.5 11.1 5.12 29.8 0.07 0.16 5.80 5.96 0.16 1.47 1.63 85.1 8,938 9,023 9.32 0.41 2.71 9,381 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 11.9 11.5 4.82 33.1 0.07 0.17 5.55 5.72 0.16 1.40 1.57 85.1 8,992 9,077 9.27 0.39 11.5 9,436 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.17 2.09 0.88 6.04 0.01 0.03 1.01 1.04 0.03 0.26 0.29 14.1 1,489 1,503 1.54 0.06 1.91 1,562
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 5.07 4.72 3.11 33.3 0.07 0.04 5.80 5.84 0.04 1.47 1.51 — 6,831 6,831 0.41 0.33 22.3 6,963 Area 7.71 7.67 0.08 8.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 23.2 23.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.3 Energy 0.18 0.09 1.50 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 2,707 2,707 0.30 0.02 — 2,720 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 11.8 54.2 66.0 1.22 0.03 — 105 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 73.3 0.00 73.3 7.33 0.00 — 256 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.14 2.14
Total 13.0 12.5 4.70 42.6 0.08 0.17 5.80 5.97 0.16 1.47 1.63 85.1 9,616 9,701 9.25 0.38 24.4 10,070 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
14 / 78
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.46 4.09 3.61 29.2 0.06 0.04 5.80 5.84 0.04 1.47 1.51 — 6,177 6,177 0.47 0.36 0.58 6,297 Area 6.90 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.18 0.09 1.50 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 2,707 2,707 0.30 0.02 — 2,720 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 11.8 54.2 66.0 1.22 0.03 — 105 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 73.3 0.00 73.3 7.33 0.00 — 256 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.14 2.14
Total 11.5 11.1 5.12 29.8 0.07 0.16 5.80 5.96 0.16 1.47 1.63 85.1 8,938 9,023 9.32 0.41 2.71 9,381 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.44 4.09 3.28 28.2 0.06 0.04 5.55 5.59 0.04 1.40 1.44 — 6,219 6,219 0.43 0.34 9.40 6,340 Area 7.30 7.28 0.04 4.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 11.4 11.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.5 Energy 0.18 0.09 1.50 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 2,707 2,707 0.30 0.02 — 2,720 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 11.8 54.2 66.0 1.22 0.03 — 105 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 73.3 0.00 73.3 7.33 0.00 — 256 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.14 2.14
Total 11.9 11.5 4.82 33.1 0.07 0.17 5.55 5.72 0.16 1.40 1.57 85.1 8,992 9,077 9.27 0.39 11.5 9,436 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.81 0.75 0.60 5.14 0.01 0.01 1.01 1.02 0.01 0.26 0.26 — 1,030 1,030 0.07 0.06 1.56 1,050 Area 1.33 1.33 0.01 0.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 1.89 1.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.90 Energy 0.03 0.02 0.27 0.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 448 448 0.05 < 0.005 — 450 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 1.96 8.98 10.9 0.20 < 0.005 — 17.5 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 12.1 0.00 12.1 1.21 0.00 — 42.5 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.35 0.35
Total 2.17 2.09 0.88 6.04 0.01 0.03 1.01 1.04 0.03 0.26 0.29 14.1 1,489 1,503 1.54 0.06 1.91 1,562
2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
15 / 78
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 5.07 4.72 3.11 33.3 0.07 0.04 5.80 5.84 0.04 1.47 1.51 — 6,831 6,831 0.41 0.33 22.3 6,963 Area 7.71 7.67 0.08 8.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 23.2 23.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.3 Energy 0.18 0.09 1.50 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 2,707 2,707 0.30 0.02 — 2,720 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 11.8 54.2 66.0 1.22 0.03 — 105 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 73.3 0.00 73.3 7.33 0.00 — 256 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.14 2.14
Total 13.0 12.5 4.70 42.6 0.08 0.17 5.80 5.97 0.16 1.47 1.63 85.1 9,616 9,701 9.25 0.38 24.4 10,070 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.46 4.09 3.61 29.2 0.06 0.04 5.80 5.84 0.04 1.47 1.51 — 6,177 6,177 0.47 0.36 0.58 6,297 Area 6.90 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.18 0.09 1.50 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 2,707 2,707 0.30 0.02 — 2,720 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 11.8 54.2 66.0 1.22 0.03 — 105 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 73.3 0.00 73.3 7.33 0.00 — 256 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.14 2.14
Total 11.5 11.1 5.12 29.8 0.07 0.16 5.80 5.96 0.16 1.47 1.63 85.1 8,938 9,023 9.32 0.41 2.71 9,381 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.44 4.09 3.28 28.2 0.06 0.04 5.55 5.59 0.04 1.40 1.44 — 6,219 6,219 0.43 0.34 9.40 6,340 Area 7.30 7.28 0.04 4.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 11.4 11.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.5 Energy 0.18 0.09 1.50 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 2,707 2,707 0.30 0.02 — 2,720 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 11.8 54.2 66.0 1.22 0.03 — 105 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 73.3 0.00 73.3 7.33 0.00 — 256 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.14 2.14
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
16 / 78
Total 11.9 11.5 4.82 33.1 0.07 0.17 5.55 5.72 0.16 1.40 1.57 85.1 8,992 9,077 9.27 0.39 11.5 9,436 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.81 0.75 0.60 5.14 0.01 0.01 1.01 1.02 0.01 0.26 0.26 — 1,030 1,030 0.07 0.06 1.56 1,050 Area 1.33 1.33 0.01 0.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 1.89 1.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.90 Energy 0.03 0.02 0.27 0.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 448 448 0.05 < 0.005 — 450 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 1.96 8.98 10.9 0.20 < 0.005 — 17.5 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 12.1 0.00 12.1 1.21 0.00 — 42.5 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.35 0.35
Total 2.17 2.09 0.88 6.04 0.01 0.03 1.01 1.04 0.03 0.26 0.29 14.1 1,489 1,503 1.54 0.06 1.91 1,562
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
3.94 3.31 31.6 30.2 0.05 1.37 — 1.37 1.26 — 1.26 — 5,295 5,295 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 19.7 19.7 — 10.1 10.1 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
17 / 78
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.22 0.18 1.73 1.65 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 290 290 0.01 < 0.005 — 291 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.08 1.08 — 0.55 0.55 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.04 0.03 0.32 0.30 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 48.0 48.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 48.2 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.20 0.20 — 0.10 0.10 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 106 106 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.40 108 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.34 5.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.43 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
18 / 78
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.88 0.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.90 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.2. Site Preparation (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
3.94 3.31 31.6 30.2 0.05 1.37 — 1.37 1.26 — 1.26 — 5,295 5,295 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 7.67 7.67 — 3.94 3.94 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.22 0.18 1.73 1.65 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 290 290 0.01 < 0.005 — 291 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
19 / 78
Dust — — — — — — 0.42 0.42 — 0.22 0.22 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.04 0.03 0.32 0.30 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 48.0 48.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 48.2 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.08 0.08 — 0.04 0.04 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 106 106 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.40 108 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.34 5.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.43 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.88 0.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.90 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
20 / 78
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
3.80 3.20 29.7 28.3 0.06 1.23 — 1.23 1.14 — 1.14 — 6,599 6,599 0.27 0.05 — 6,622 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 9.20 9.20 — 3.65 3.65 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.47 0.39 3.66 3.49 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.14 — 0.14 — 814 814 0.03 0.01 — 816 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.13 1.13 — 0.45 0.45 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
21 / 78
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.09 0.07 0.67 0.64 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 135 135 0.01 < 0.005 — 135 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.21 0.21 — 0.08 0.08 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.09 0.05 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 121 121 < 0.005 0.01 0.45 123 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.7 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 14.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.28 2.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.31 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.4. Grading (2025) - Mitigated
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
22 / 78
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
3.80 3.20 29.7 28.3 0.06 1.23 — 1.23 1.14 — 1.14 — 6,599 6,599 0.27 0.05 — 6,622 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 3.59 3.59 — 1.42 1.42 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.47 0.39 3.66 3.49 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.14 — 0.14 — 814 814 0.03 0.01 — 816 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.44 0.44 — 0.18 0.18 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.09 0.07 0.67 0.64 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 135 135 0.01 < 0.005 — 135 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
23 / 78
Dust — — — — — — 0.08 0.08 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.09 0.05 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 121 121 < 0.005 0.01 0.45 123 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.7 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 14.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.28 2.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.31 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
24 / 78
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.37 0.31 2.84 3.55 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 — 652 652 0.03 0.01 — 654 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.07 0.06 0.52 0.65 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 108 108 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 108 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
25 / 78
Worker 0.25 0.24 0.13 2.05 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 334 334 0.01 0.01 1.25 340 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.35 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 215 215 0.01 0.03 0.56 225 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.22 0.21 0.15 1.66 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 296 296 0.01 0.01 0.03 301 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.37 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 216 216 0.01 0.03 0.01 225 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 83.5 83.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 84.9 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 58.6 58.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 61.2 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.8 13.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 14.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.70 9.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 10.1 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.6. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
26 / 78
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.37 0.31 2.84 3.55 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 — 652 652 0.03 0.01 — 654 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.07 0.06 0.52 0.65 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 108 108 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 108 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.25 0.24 0.13 2.05 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 334 334 0.01 0.01 1.25 340 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.35 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 215 215 0.01 0.03 0.56 225 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
27 / 78
Worker 0.22 0.21 0.15 1.66 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 296 296 0.01 0.01 0.03 301 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.37 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 216 216 0.01 0.03 0.01 225 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 83.5 83.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 84.9 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 58.6 58.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 61.2 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.8 13.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 14.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.70 9.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 10.1 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
28 / 78
Off-Roa 1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 d
Equipm
ent
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.91 0.77 7.04 9.26 0.02 0.27 — 0.27 0.25 — 0.25 — 1,712 1,712 0.07 0.01 — 1,718 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.17 0.14 1.28 1.69 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 283 283 0.01 < 0.005 — 284 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.23 0.22 0.11 1.89 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 327 327 0.01 0.01 1.14 333 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.33 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 211 211 0.01 0.03 0.49 221 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.20 0.19 0.14 1.53 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 290 290 0.01 0.01 0.03 295 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.36 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 212 212 0.01 0.03 0.01 221 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
29 / 78
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Worker 0.15 0.14 0.09 1.11 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 215 215 0.01 0.01 0.35 218 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.25 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 151 151 < 0.005 0.02 0.15 158 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 35.6 35.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 36.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 25.0 25.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 26.1 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.8. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
30 / 78
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.91 0.77 7.04 9.26 0.02 0.27 — 0.27 0.25 — 0.25 — 1,712 1,712 0.07 0.01 — 1,718 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.17 0.14 1.28 1.69 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 283 283 0.01 < 0.005 — 284 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.23 0.22 0.11 1.89 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 327 327 0.01 0.01 1.14 333 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.33 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 211 211 0.01 0.03 0.49 221 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.20 0.19 0.14 1.53 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 290 290 0.01 0.01 0.03 295 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.36 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 212 212 0.01 0.03 0.01 221 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.14 0.09 1.11 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 215 215 0.01 0.01 0.35 218 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.25 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 151 151 < 0.005 0.02 0.15 158 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
31 / 78
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 35.6 35.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 36.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 25.0 25.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 26.1 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.47 0.40 3.62 4.99 0.01 0.13 — 0.13 0.12 — 0.12 — 924 924 0.04 0.01 — 927 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
32 / 78
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.09 0.07 0.66 0.91 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 153 153 0.01 < 0.005 — 154 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.21 0.21 0.10 1.74 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 320 320 0.01 0.01 1.03 325 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.32 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 207 207 0.01 0.03 0.43 216 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.19 0.17 0.13 1.41 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 284 284 0.01 0.01 0.03 289 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.35 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 207 207 0.01 0.03 0.01 216 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 114 114 < 0.005 0.01 0.17 115 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.13 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 79.7 79.7 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 83.3 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.8 18.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 19.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.2 13.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 13.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.10. Building Construction (2027) - Mitigated
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
33 / 78
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.47 0.40 3.62 4.99 0.01 0.13 — 0.13 0.12 — 0.12 — 924 924 0.04 0.01 — 927 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.09 0.07 0.66 0.91 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 153 153 0.01 < 0.005 — 154 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
34 / 78
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.21 0.21 0.10 1.74 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 320 320 0.01 0.01 1.03 325 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.32 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 207 207 0.01 0.03 0.43 216 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.19 0.17 0.13 1.41 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 284 284 0.01 0.01 0.03 289 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.35 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 207 207 0.01 0.03 0.01 216 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 114 114 < 0.005 0.01 0.17 115 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.13 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 79.7 79.7 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 83.3 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.8 18.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 19.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.2 13.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 13.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.11. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
35 / 78
Off-Roa 0.88 0.74 6.94 9.95 0.01 0.30 — 0.30 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 d
Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.08 0.07 0.67 0.95 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 145 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.02 0.01 0.12 0.17 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.1 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 87.2 87.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.28 88.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
36 / 78
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.69 7.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.82 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.27 1.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.29 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.12. Paving (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.88 0.74 6.94 9.95 0.01 0.30 — 0.30 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.08 0.07 0.67 0.95 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 145 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
37 / 78
Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.02 0.01 0.12 0.17 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.1 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 87.2 87.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.28 88.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.69 7.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.82 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.27 1.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.29 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.13. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
38 / 78
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
53.4 53.4 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
53.4 53.4 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.08 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 12.8 12.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.8 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
39 / 78
Architect 5.12 5.12 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Coating
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.12 2.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.13 Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.93 0.93 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 64.0 64.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21 65.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 56.9 56.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 57.8 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.65 5.65 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.74 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
40 / 78
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.93 0.93 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.95 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.14. Architectural Coating (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
53.4 53.4 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
53.4 53.4 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
41 / 78
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.08 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 12.8 12.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.8 Architect
ural
Coating
s
5.12 5.12 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.12 2.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.13 Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.93 0.93 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 64.0 64.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21 65.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 56.9 56.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 57.8 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
42 / 78
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.65 5.65 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.74 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.93 0.93 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.95 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
5.07 4.72 3.11 33.3 0.07 0.04 5.80 5.84 0.04 1.47 1.51 — 6,831 6,831 0.41 0.33 22.3 6,963 Total 5.07 4.72 3.11 33.3 0.07 0.04 5.80 5.84 0.04 1.47 1.51 — 6,831 6,831 0.41 0.33 22.3 6,963 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
4.46 4.09 3.61 29.2 0.06 0.04 5.80 5.84 0.04 1.47 1.51 — 6,177 6,177 0.47 0.36 0.58 6,297 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
43 / 78
Total 4.46 4.09 3.61 29.2 0.06 0.04 5.80 5.84 0.04 1.47 1.51 — 6,177 6,177 0.47 0.36 0.58 6,297 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
0.81 0.75 0.60 5.14 0.01 0.01 1.01 1.02 0.01 0.26 0.26 — 1,030 1,030 0.07 0.06 1.56 1,050 Total 0.81 0.75 0.60 5.14 0.01 0.01 1.01 1.02 0.01 0.26 0.26 — 1,030 1,030 0.07 0.06 1.56 1,050
4.1.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
5.07 4.72 3.11 33.3 0.07 0.04 5.80 5.84 0.04 1.47 1.51 — 6,831 6,831 0.41 0.33 22.3 6,963 Total 5.07 4.72 3.11 33.3 0.07 0.04 5.80 5.84 0.04 1.47 1.51 — 6,831 6,831 0.41 0.33 22.3 6,963 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
4.46 4.09 3.61 29.2 0.06 0.04 5.80 5.84 0.04 1.47 1.51 — 6,177 6,177 0.47 0.36 0.58 6,297 Total 4.46 4.09 3.61 29.2 0.06 0.04 5.80 5.84 0.04 1.47 1.51 — 6,177 6,177 0.47 0.36 0.58 6,297 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
0.81 0.75 0.60 5.14 0.01 0.01 1.01 1.02 0.01 0.26 0.26 — 1,030 1,030 0.07 0.06 1.56 1,050 Total 0.81 0.75 0.60 5.14 0.01 0.01 1.01 1.02 0.01 0.26 0.26 — 1,030 1,030 0.07 0.06 1.56 1,050
4.2. Energy
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
44 / 78
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 799 799 0.13 0.02 — 807
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 799 799 0.13 0.02 — 807
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 799 799 0.13 0.02 — 807
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 799 799 0.13 0.02 — 807
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 132 132 0.02 < 0.005 — 134
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 132 132 0.02 < 0.005 — 134
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 799 799 0.13 0.02 — 807
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
45 / 78
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 799 799 0.13 0.02 — 807
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 799 799 0.13 0.02 — 807
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 799 799 0.13 0.02 — 807
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 132 132 0.02 < 0.005 — 134
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 132 132 0.02 < 0.005 — 134
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
0.18 0.09 1.50 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 1,908 1,908 0.17 < 0.005 — 1,913 Total 0.18 0.09 1.50 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 1,908 1,908 0.17 < 0.005 — 1,913 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
0.18 0.09 1.50 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 1,908 1,908 0.17 < 0.005 — 1,913 Total 0.18 0.09 1.50 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 1,908 1,908 0.17 < 0.005 — 1,913 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
46 / 78
Single 0.03 0.02 0.27 0.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 316 316 0.03 < 0.005 — 317 Family
Housing
Total 0.03 0.02 0.27 0.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 316 316 0.03 < 0.005 — 317
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
0.18 0.09 1.50 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 1,908 1,908 0.17 < 0.005 — 1,913 Total 0.18 0.09 1.50 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 1,908 1,908 0.17 < 0.005 — 1,913 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
0.18 0.09 1.50 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 1,908 1,908 0.17 < 0.005 — 1,913 Total 0.18 0.09 1.50 0.64 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 1,908 1,908 0.17 < 0.005 — 1,913 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
0.03 0.02 0.27 0.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 316 316 0.03 < 0.005 — 317 Total 0.03 0.02 0.27 0.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 316 316 0.03 < 0.005 — 317
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
47 / 78
Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s
6.38 6.38 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.51 0.51 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
0.81 0.77 0.08 8.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 23.2 23.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.3 Total 7.71 7.67 0.08 8.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 23.2 23.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.3 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s
6.38 6.38 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.51 0.51 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 6.90 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
48 / 78
Consum 1.17 1.17 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
er
Product
s
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.09 0.09 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
0.07 0.07 0.01 0.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.89 1.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.90 Total 1.33 1.33 0.01 0.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 1.89 1.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.90
4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s
6.38 6.38 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.51 0.51 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
0.81 0.77 0.08 8.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 23.2 23.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.3 Total 7.71 7.67 0.08 8.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 23.2 23.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.3 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
49 / 78
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s
6.38 6.38 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.51 0.51 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 6.90 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s
1.17 1.17 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.09 0.09 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
0.07 0.07 0.01 0.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.89 1.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.90 Total 1.33 1.33 0.01 0.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 1.89 1.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.90
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
50 / 78
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 11.8 54.2 66.0 1.22 0.03 — 105
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 11.8 54.2 66.0 1.22 0.03 — 105 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 11.8 54.2 66.0 1.22 0.03 — 105
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 11.8 54.2 66.0 1.22 0.03 — 105 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.96 8.98 10.9 0.20 < 0.005 — 17.5 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1.96 8.98 10.9 0.20 < 0.005 — 17.5
4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 11.8 54.2 66.0 1.22 0.03 — 105
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 11.8 54.2 66.0 1.22 0.03 — 105 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
51 / 78
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 11.8 54.2 66.0 1.22 0.03 — 105
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 11.8 54.2 66.0 1.22 0.03 — 105 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.96 8.98 10.9 0.20 < 0.005 — 17.5 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1.96 8.98 10.9 0.20 < 0.005 — 17.5
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 73.3 0.00 73.3 7.33 0.00 — 256
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 73.3 0.00 73.3 7.33 0.00 — 256 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 73.3 0.00 73.3 7.33 0.00 — 256
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 73.3 0.00 73.3 7.33 0.00 — 256 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 12.1 0.00 12.1 1.21 0.00 — 42.5
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
52 / 78
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 12.1 0.00 12.1 1.21 0.00 — 42.5
4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 73.3 0.00 73.3 7.33 0.00 — 256
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 73.3 0.00 73.3 7.33 0.00 — 256 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 73.3 0.00 73.3 7.33 0.00 — 256
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 73.3 0.00 73.3 7.33 0.00 — 256 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 12.1 0.00 12.1 1.21 0.00 — 42.5
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 12.1 0.00 12.1 1.21 0.00 — 42.5
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
53 / 78
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.14 2.14
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.14 2.14
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.14 2.14
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.14 2.14
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.35 0.35
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.35 0.35
4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.14 2.14
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.14 2.14
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
54 / 78
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.14 2.14
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.14 2.14
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.35 0.35
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.35 0.35
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
55 / 78
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
56 / 78
Equipm TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e ent
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9.2. Mitigated
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
57 / 78
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
58 / 78
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
59 / 78
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
60 / 78
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
61 / 78
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
Annual——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
5. Activity Data
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
62 / 78
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 5/14/2025 6/11/2025 5.00 20.0 — Grading Grading 6/12/2025 8/14/2025 5.00 45.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 8/15/2025 7/16/2027 5.00 500 — Paving Paving 7/17/2027 9/4/2027 5.00 35.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 9/5/2027 10/24/2027 5.00 35.0 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
63 / 78
Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
64 / 78
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 55.1 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 16.4 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 11.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
65 / 78
Site Preparation————
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor— 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck—— HHDT
Grading————
Grading Worker 20.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor— 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck—— HHDT
Building Construction————
Building Construction Worker 55.1 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 16.4 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck—— HHDT
Paving————
Paving Worker 15.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor— 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck—— HHDT
Architectural Coating————
Architectural Coating Worker 11.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor— 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck—— HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
66 / 78
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 604,159 201,386 0.00 0.00 —
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation — — 30.0 0.00 —
Grading — — 135 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.69
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Single Family Housing 1.69 0%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
67 / 78
2027 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Single Family
Housing
1,444 1,460 1,308 520,874 8,184 8,270 7,412 2,951,279
5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Single Family
Housing
1,444 1,460 1,308 520,874 8,184 8,270 7,412 2,951,279
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Single Family Housing —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 176
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
68 / 78
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Single Family Housing —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 176
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
604158.75 201,386 0.00 0.00 —
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
69 / 78
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 1,430,027 204 0.0330 0.0040 5,953,585
5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 1,430,027 204 0.0330 0.0040 5,953,585
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 6,165,288 30,066,767
5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 6,165,288 30,066,767
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
70 / 78
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 136 —
5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 136 —
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Single Family Housing Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Single Family Housing Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
71 / 78
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
72 / 78
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 30.1 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 1.25 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
73 / 78
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 4 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding 0 0 0 N/A
Drought 0 0 0 N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 4 1 1 4
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
74 / 78
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding 1 1 1 2
Drought 1 1 1 2
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 91.1
AQ-PM 94.4
AQ-DPM 13.4
Drinking Water 97.2
Lead Risk Housing 45.4
Pesticides 94.3
Toxic Releases 45.8
Traffic 3.85
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 50.3
Groundwater 25.1
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
75 / 78
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 44.7
Impaired Water Bodies 23.9
Solid Waste 63.7
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 74.0
Cardio-vascular 72.9
Low Birth Weights 47.1
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 56.0
Housing 24.9
Linguistic 10.4
Poverty 38.9
Unemployment 26.9
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 59.39946105
Employed 65.58449891
Median HI 51.39227512
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 40.20274605
High school enrollment 24.3295265
Preschool enrollment 5.941229308
Transportation —
Auto Access 95.6242782
Active commuting 22.0967535
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
76 / 78
Social —
2-parent households 70.60182215
Voting 50.27588862
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 86.74451431
Park access 19.196715
Retail density 3.708456307
Supermarket access 39.16335173
Tree canopy 77.38996535
Housing —
Homeownership 84.84537405
Housing habitability 90.42730656
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 37.22571539 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 95.50878994
Uncrowded housing 71.88502502
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 42.7691518
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 33.9
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 48.8
Cognitively Disabled 22.1
Physically Disabled 18.7
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
77 / 78
Heart Attack ER Admissions 44.6
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 73.7
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 41.8
Elderly 29.3
English Speaking 51.1
Foreign-born 35.7
Outdoor Workers 8.7
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity—
Impervious Surface Cover 92.0
Traffic Density 4.5
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices—
Hardship 59.1
Other Decision Support—
2016 Voting 45.6
Westhaven II Detailed Report, 5/30/2025
78 / 78
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 64.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 48.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Yes Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Acreage adjusted to match actual site
Construction: Construction Phases Demolition removed
Operations: Fleet Mix SJVAPCD Residential Fleet Mix for Year 2026 Operations: Hearths No Hearths
APPENDIX C
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT MODELING FILES (ELECTRONIC)
CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT
WESTHAVEN II SUBDIVISION PROJECT
Prepared for:
City of Reedley
Consultant:
5080 California Avenue, Suite 220
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Contact: Robert E. Parr, MS, RPA
Phone: (661) 616-2600
August 2025
© Copyright by Quad Knopf, Inc.
Unauthorized use prohibited.
Project #240227
Cultural Resource Assessment – Westhaven II Subdivision Project January 2025 City of Reedley Page i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Project Description and Location ................................................................................................................... 2 National Historic Preservation Act – Section 106 ........................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Integrity ........................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
California Register of Historical Resources Significance CriteriaError! Bookmark not defined.
Records Search ....................................................................................................................................................... 8 Tribal Consultation ............................................................................................................................................... 9 Results .............................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................................. 9 References ............................................................................................................................................................ 11
Attachment
Attachment A – Sacred Lands File
Attachment B – Tribal Constulation Documentation
List of Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location...................................................................................................................................3 Figure 2 Action Area................................................................................................................................................4 Figure 3 Public Land Survey System................................................................................................................5 Figure 4 Topo.............................................................................................................................................................6 Cultural Resource Assessment – Westhaven II Subdivision Project January 2025 City of Wasco Page 1
Executive Summary
A cultural resource assessment was prepared for the Westhaven II Subdivision Project in Fresno County, California. The proposed Project or Action will consist of the construction of 175 single-family residential units, an on-site stormwater retention basin and five outlots on an undeveloped 34-net acre parcel (APN 370-040-10), generally bounded by future East North Avenue to the north, South Buttonwillow Avenue to the east, Rancho Vista residential subdivision to the south, and Buttonwillow Ditch to the west within unincorporated Fresno County, immediately adjacent to the City of Reedley (City) corporate limits. Lot sizes vary from 6,000 to 11,478 square feet and the proposed drainage basin area is approximately
1.75 acres. The maximum depth for the vertical area of potential effect (APE) is 10 feet. Full buildout will take approximately four years from the time that the project Tentative Map is approved. It is situated within the Reedley, California United States Geological Survey (USGS)
7.5-minute topographic map, Section 25, Township 15 South, Range 23 East, M.D.M. The property is surrounded by agricultural and vacant land to the north, single-family residential to the east, vacant land and a school to the west, and single-family residential to the south.
This cultural resources report was prepared in order to identify any cultural resources that may exist within the Project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE) that potentially could be impacted by construction and activities. No cultural resources, either prehistoric or historical, were identified within the Project as a result of the records search and none are expected to be impacted by the proposed Project. A Less than Significant Impact under CEQA for cultural resources is recommended for the Action. If, however, any as-yet unidentified (e.g., buried) resources are encountered during Project construction activities, work in the vicinity of the discovery should be halted until the finding can be evaluated by a qualified cultural resources specialist.
Cultural Resource Assessment – Westhaven II Subdivision Project January 2025 City of Reedley Page 2
Project Description and Location
The City of Reedley initiated an Environmental Assessment the purpose of assessing the environmental effects of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6497 (Westhaven II Subdivision) and related entitlements, herein referred to as “the project”.
The project site is bounded by East Springfield Avenue to the east, a residential subdivision to the south, rural residential homes and East North Avenue to the north, and South Buttonwillow Avenue to the west, and is situated approximately nine miles northeast of State Route (SR) 99 and eight miles south of SR-180. Regional access to the project site is available by SR-99 and SR-180. Local access to the project site would be provided via South Buttonwillow Avenue and East North Avenue.
The project proposes the development of 175 single-family lots ranging in size from approximately 6,000 square feet to 11,478 square feet, development of an on-site storm drain basin, and five outlots. On- and off-site improvements including circulation roads, interior local streets, curb, gutter, sidewalk, open space, and landscaping are proposed as part of the project.
The project site is located within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) and has a planned land use designation of Low Density Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre [du/acre]) and High Density Residential (15-29 du/acre) pursuant to the Reedley 2030 General Plan. The site is zoned Limited Agricultural (AL-20) according to the County of Fresno zoning map. The project proposes to amend the planned land use designation of an approximately 3.5-acre portion of the project site from High Density Residential to Low Density Residential.
Additionally, the project proposes to pre-zone the project site and the three rural residential parcels to the northwest, APNs 370-040-13, 370-040-22, and 370-040-23, to the R-1-6 (One Family Residential) zone district in preparation for annexation of the parcels consistent with the Reedley 2030 General Plan. The annexation request would remove the area from the Fresno County Fire Protection District and the Kings River Conservation District service boundaries.
Water, sewer, solid waste and storm drainage utilities will be provided by the City of Reedley.
Electricity will be provided by Pacific Gas and Electric and natural gas will be provided by Southern California Gas.
Cultural Resource Assessment – Westhaven II Subdivision Project January 2025 City of Reedley Page 3
Figure 1
Regional Location
Cultural Resource Assessment – Westhaven II Subdivision Project January 2025 City of Reedley Page 4
Figure 2
Action Area
Cultural Resource Assessment – Westhaven II Subdivision Project January 2025 City of Reedley Page 5
Figure 3
Public Land Survey System
Cultural Resource Assessment – Westhaven II Subdivision Project January 2025 City of Reedley Page 6
Figure 4
Topo
Cultural Resource Assessment – Westhaven II Subdivision Project January 2025 City of Reedley Page 7
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA is the state law that applies to a project’s impacts on cultural resources. A project is an activity that may cause a direct or indirect physical change in the environment and that is undertaken or funded by a state or local agency, or requires a permit, license, or lease from a state or local agency. CEQA requires that impacts to Historical Resources be identified and, if the impacts will be significant, then apply mitigation measures to reduce the impacts.
A Historical Resource is a resource that:
i. is listed in or has been determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) by the State Historical Resources Commission, or has been determined historically significant by the CEQA lead agency because it meets the eligibility criteria for the CRHR;
ii. is included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) 5020.1(k); or
iii. has been identified as significant in a historical resources survey, as defined in PRC 5024.1(g) (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 14, Section 15064.5(a)).
The eligibility criteria for the CRHR are as follows (CCR Title 14, Section 4852(b)):
i. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;
ii. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history;
iii. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or iv. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation In addition, the resource must retain integrity, which is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association (CCR Title 14, Section 4852(c)). Resources that have been determined eligible for the NRHP are automatically eligible for the CRHR.
Impacts to a Historical Resource, as defined by CEQA (listed in an official historic inventory or survey or eligible for the CRHR), are significant if the resource is demolished or destroyed or if the characteristics that made the resource eligible are materially impaired (CCR Title 14, Section 15064.5(b)). Demolition or alteration of eligible buildings, structures, and features that they would no longer be eligible would result in a significant impact. Whole or partial destruction of eligible archaeological sites would result in a significant impact. In addition to impacts from construction resulting in destruction or physical alteration of an eligible resource, impacts to the integrity of setting (sometimes termed visual impacts) of physical features in the Project Area could also result in significant impacts.
Cultural Resource Assessment – Westhaven II Subdivision Project January 2025 City of Reedley Page 8
Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) are defined in Section 21074 of the California PRC as sites, features, places, cultural landscapes (geographically defined in terms of the size and scope), sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either included in or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR, or are included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1, or are 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.
Section 1(b)(4) of Assembly Bill (AB) 52 established that only California Native American tribes, as defined in Section 21073 of the California PRC, are experts in the identification of TCRs and impacts thereto. Because ECORP does not meet the definition of a California Native American tribe, it only addresses information in this report for which it is qualified to identify and evaluate, and that which is needed to inform the cultural resources section of CEQA documents. This report, therefore, does not identify or evaluate TCRs. Should California Native American tribes ascribe additional importance to or interpretation of archaeological resources described herein, or provide information about non-archeological TCRs, that information is documented separately in the AB 52 tribal consultation record between the tribe(s) and lead agency and summarized in the TCRs section of the CEQA document, if applicable.
Records Search
A cultural resources records search (#25-025) was conducted at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (IC) at California State University, Bakersfield for the Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6497 (Westhaven II) Project in the city of Reedley, Fresno County, California. The purpose of the search was to determine whether any known cultural resources are located on or near the proposed project that might be impacted by project construction and/or activities.
The records search covered an area within one-half mile of the proposed project and included a review of the National Register of Historic Places, California Points of Historical Interest, California Registry of Historic Resources, California Historical Landmarks, California State Historic Resources Inventory, and a review of cultural resource reports on file.
The records search indicated that the subject property has never been surveyed for cultural resources and it is not known if any exist on it. Five previous cultural resource studies have been conducted within a half mile of the project (Onchi and Varner 1980; Varner 1994; Wren 2003; Brady 2010; Whitley and Carey 2017). No cultural resources have been identified or recorded within one half mile of the project.
A records search of the Sacred Land File (SLF) was also prepared by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). A response dated January 9, 2025, indicates negative results and is appended to this report (Appendix A).
Cultural Resource Assessment – Westhaven II Subdivision Project January 2025 City of Reedley Page 9
Tribal Consultation
A letter inviting tribes was sent to the tribes listed on April 24, 2025 (Appendix B). The list of tribes was provided by the NAHC To date, one response was received. Table Mountain Rancheria responded stating they declined to participate in consultation at this time. No other tribal responses were received.
Conclusions
A Less than Significant Impact for cultural resources is recommended for the Project. The site is in an urbanized area, has been previously disturbed, and no cultural resources, either prehistoric or historical, were identified within the Project APE as a result of the records search. The following additional mitigation measures are recommended in the unlikely event that cultural resources are encountered during construction or use of the study area:
CUL-1: If previously unknown historical resources are encountered before or during grading activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified historical resources specialist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified historical resources specialist shall make recommendations to the City on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.
If the resources are determined to be unique historical resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, measures shall be identified by the qualified historical resources specialist and recommended to the City. Appropriate measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the City approves the measures to protect these resources. Construction can recommence based on the direction of the qualified archaeologist and with the City’s concurrence.
Any historical artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City‐ approved institution or person who is capable of providing long‐term preservation to allow future scientific study.
CUL-2: In the event that buried prehistoric archaeological resources are discovered during excavation and/or construction activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified archaeologist shall make recommendations to the developer and City on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Cultural Resource Assessment – Westhaven II Subdivision Project January 2025 City of Reedley Page 10
If the resources are determined to be unique prehistoric archaeological resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measures shall be identified by the monitor and required to the developer and City. Appropriate measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the lead agency approves the measures to protect these resources.
Any prehistoric archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City‐approved institution or person who is capable of providing long‐term preservation to allow future scientific study.
CUL-3: In the event that human remains are unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, all activity shall cease immediately.
Pursuant to Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(a).
If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the Coroner shall within 24 hours notify the NAHC. The NAHC shall then contact the most likely descendent of the deceased Native American, who shall then serve as the consultant on how to proceed with the remains. Pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(b), upon the discovery of Native American remains, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains.
Robert E. Parr, MS, RPA
Senior Archaeologist
Cultural Resource Assessment – Westhaven II Subdivision Project January 2025 City of Reedley Page 11
References
Brady, Rolando H.
2010 Geoarchaeological Assessment of the Reedley Sports Park Elevated Water Tank Site, City of Reedley, Fresno County, California. (FR-02487)
Onchi, Karla and Dudley M. Varner
1980 Archaeological Survey of the Manning Avenue Right-of-Way at Travers Creek, Fresno County, California. (FR-00587)
Varner, Dudley M.
1994 An Archaeological Study of Property on North Avenue in Reedley, Fresno County, California. (FR-00780)
Whitley, David S. and Peter A. Carey
2017 Class III Inventory/Phase I Survey, Self Help Industries Consolidation Project, George Cox Water Company, Fresno County, California. (FR-03043) Wren, Donld G.
2003 A Cultural Resource Study of 19.73 Acres – APN 370-240-24 on E. Dinuba Avenue, Fresno County, California. (FR-01929)
ATTACHMENT A
SACRED LANDS FILE
ATTACHMENT B
TRIBAL CONSULTATION DOCUMENTATION
City of Reedley
Community Development Department
1733 Ninth Street
Reedley, CA 93654
(559) 637-4200
https://reedley.com
August 8, 2025
FROM: Rodney Horton, Community Development Director, City of Reedley RE: Westhaven II Residential Subdivision Project, located at the southeast corner of South Buttonwillow Avenue and East North Avenue, Reedley, Fresno County, California Dear Tribal Leader:
D.R. Horton (Applicant) proposes to construct the Westhaven II Residential Subdivision Project (project). The City of Reedley is designated as Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and holds the environmental review responsibilities for this project, including tribal consultation related to historic properties. Historic properties include archeological sites, burial grounds, sacred landscapes or features, ceremonial areas, traditional cultural places and landscapes, plant and animal communities, and buildings and structures with significant tribal association.
The proposed project is located within unincorporated Fresno County, immediately adjacent to the city of Reedley corporate limits (APN 370-040-10). The project site is generally bounded by future East North Avenue to the north, South Buttonwillow Avenue to the east, Rancho Vista residential subdivision to the south, and Buttonwillow Ditch to the west, and is situated approximately nine miles northeast of State Route (SR) 99 and eight miles south of SR-180. Regional access to the project site is available by SR-99 and SR-180. Local access to the project site would be provided via South Buttonwillow Avenue and East North Avenue. The site is located within the Reedley, California United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic map, Section 25, Township 15 South, Range 23 East, M.D.M. (See Attachment A).
The project proposes the development of 175 single-family lots ranging in size from approximately 6,000 square feet to 11,478 square feet, development of an on-site storm drain basin, and five outlots.
On- and off-site improvements including circulation roads, interior local streets, curb, gutter, sidewalk, open space, and landscaping are proposed as part of the project.
The project site is located within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) and has a planned land use designation of Low Density Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre [du/acre]) and High Density Residential (15-29 du/acre) pursuant to the Reedley 2030 General Plan. The site is zoned Limited Agricultural (AL-20) according to the County of Fresno zoning map. The project proposes to amend the planned land use designation of an approximately 3.5-acre portion of the project site from High Density Residential to Low Density Residential. Additionally, the project proposes to pre-zone the project site and the three rural residential parcels to the northwest, APNs 370-040-13, 370-040-22, and 370-040-23, to the R-1-6 (One Family Residential) zone district in preparation for annexation of the parcels consistent with the Reedley 2030 General Plan. The annexation request would remove the area from the Fresno County Fire Protection District and the Kings River Conservation District service boundaries.
Water, sewer, solid waste and storm drainage utilities will be provided by the City of Reedley.
Electricity will be provided by Pacific Gas and Electric and natural gas will be provided by Southern California Gas.
A cultural resources records search (#25-025) was conducted at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center at California State University, Bakersfield. The records search covered an area within one-half mile of the project and included a review of the National Register of Historic Places, California Points of Historical Interest, California Registry of Historic Resources, California Historical Landmarks, California State Historic Resources Inventory, and a review of cultural resource reports on file. A Sacred Lands File Request (SLF) was also submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The SLF letter dated January 9, 2025, indicated negative results, and no tribal cultural resources were known to exist within the APE. The NAHC letter and the Cultural Resources Report are included herein.
Pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 (b), you have 30 days from receipt of this letter to request consultation, in writing. Please submit your recommendations within thirty (30) days of your receipt of this request to Jaymie Brauer, QK, 5080 California Avenue, Suite 220, Bakersfield CA 93309, or [email protected].
Sincerely,
/s/
Rodney Horton
Community Development Director
Enclosures:
• Attachment 1: Figures
• Attachment 2: NAHC Response Letter
• Attachment 3: Cultural Resources Report
Attachment A
Figures
Figure 1
Regional Location
Figure 2
Action Area
Figure 3
Public Land Survey System
Figure 4
Topo
APPENDIX C
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
D.R. HORTON
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 6497
WEST HAVEN II
FEBRUARY 2025
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 6497 WEST
HAVEN II
Prepared for:
D.R. Horton
419 W. Murray Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
Contact: Matt Tranah
Phone: (559) 636-9850
Consultant:
5080 California Avenue, Suite 220
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Contact: Jaymie Brauer
Brian G. Shoener, P.E.
Phone: (559) 449-2400
Fax: (559) 733-7821
February 2025
© Copyright by Quad Knopf, Inc.
Unauthorized use prohibited.
Project #240227
Water Supply Assessment for West Haven II (TTM 6497) February 2025 D.R. Horton Page i
Table of Contents
SECTION 1 - Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 - Regulatory Requirement.........................................................................................................................1-1
1.2 - Project Description and Location........................................................................................................1-1
1.3 - Project Water Requirements and Setting ........................................................................................1-2 SECTION 2 - Water Resources/Water Supply ....................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 - Proposed Water Supply...........................................................................................................................2-1
2.2 - Hydrologic Region......................................................................................................................................2-3
2.2.1 - Groundwater - The Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region.................................................2-4
2.2.2 - The Kings Groundwater Subbasin....................................................................................2-4
2.3 - City of Reedley – 2020 UWMP..............................................................................................................2-1 SECTION 3 - Water Supply Sufficiency ..................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 - Physical Availability..................................................................................................................................3-1
3.2 - The 2020 City of Reedley, Urban Water Management Plan – Water Years Adequacy Projections...............................................................................................................................................................3-1
3.2.1 - Average (or Normal) Year....................................................................................................3-2
3.2.2 - Single Dry Year..........................................................................................................................3-2
3.2.3 - Five Consecutive Dry-Year Reliability Assessment...................................................3-2
3.3 - Water Supply Management....................................................................................................................3-3 SECTION 4 - Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 4-1 SECTION 5 - References .................................................................................................................................. 5-1 Appendices
Appendix A – Chapter 643, Statutes of 2001 (Senate Bill 610) Appendix B – City of Reedley, 2020 Urban Water Master Plan Appendix C – TTM 6497 Property WSA – Consistency with DWR Guidelines
Water Supply Assessment for West Haven II (TTM 6497) February 2025 D.R. Horton Page ii
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Regional Location ..........................................................................................................................1-3 Figure 1-2 Project Site........................................................................................................................................1-4 Figure 1-3 Project Site – Tentative Tract Map.........................................................................................1-5 Figure 1-4 Project Location: Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region..........................................................1-6 Figure 1-5 Project Location: Kings Groundwater Subbasin...............................................................1-7 Figure 2-1 Kings Groundwater Subbasin...................................................................................................2-1
Introduction
Water Supply Assessment for West Haven II (TTM 6497) February 2025 D.R. Horton Page 1-1
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION
1.1 - Regulatory Requirement
Senate Bill 610 (Chapter 643, Statutes of 2001) amended state law, effective January 1, 2002, to improve the link between information on water supply availability and land use decisions made by cities and counties. The statute requires detailed information regarding water availability to be provided to city and county decision-makers prior to approval of specified large development projects which are subject to CEQA (the California Environmental Quality Act) approval. These include residential, commercial, and industrial uses. The statute also requires this detailed information to be included in the administrative record that serves as the evidentiary basis for an entitlement action by the city or county on such projects. The statute-required water supply assessment (WSA) must examine the availability and sufficiency of an identified water supply under normal-year, single-dry-year, and multipledry-year conditions over a 20-year projection, accounting for the projected water demand of the Project in addition to other existing and planned future uses of the identified water supply.
The State Department of Water Resources “Guidebook for Implementation of Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221 of 2001” (Guidebook) and the sample format presented in the Guidebook were used as guides in preparing this water supply assessment. Pertinent excerpts from the law stipulating requirements for water supply assessments precede Sections of this report.
The full text of Chapter 643, Statutes of 2001 (SB 610) is included in Appendix A.
1.2 - Project Description and Location
The Project is a 34-acre residential development, to be developed by D.R. Horton on a site on the eastern side of the City of Reedley. The project site is bounded by East Springfield Avenue to the east, a residential subdivision to the south, rural residential homes and East North Avenue to the north, and South Buttonwillow Avenue to the west (Figure 1-1 and Figure 1- 2). The Project is within Section 25, Township 15 South, Range 23 East.
The proposed Project site is currently agriculture. The project proposes the development of 176 single-family lots averaging 5,627 square feet per lot (Figure 1-3). The project site is located within the City of Reedley’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) and has a planned land use designation of Low Density Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre [du/acre]) and High Density Residential (15-29 du/acre) pursuant to the Reedley 2030 General Plan. The site is zoned Limited Agricultural (AL-20) according to the County of Fresno zoning map. The project proposes to amend the planned land use designation of an approximately 3.5-acre portion of the project site from High Density Residential to Low Density Residential.
Additionally, the project proposes to pre-zone the project site and the three rural residential parcels to the northwest, APNs 370-040-13, 370-040-22, and 370-040-23, to the R-1-6 (One Family Residential) zone district in preparation for annexation of the parcels consistent with the Reedley 2030 General Plan.
Introduction
Water Supply Assessment for West Haven II (TTM 6497) February 2025 D.R. Horton Page 1-2
1.3 - Project Water Requirements and Setting
Water needed for construction will be obtained from the City of Reedley which obtains groundwater from wells located on land within the City. The current water distribution system is adjacent to the project site. The construction process is estimated to take approximately 48 months. Construction water demands are estimated to be approximately 225 gpd/acre for the duration of construction or 12.21 acre-feet, which is equivalent to approximately 3,978,000 gallons. Bottled drinking water will be provided for crews during construction activities.
Initial construction water usage will be in support of site preparation and grading activities.
During earthwork for grading of access road foundations, building foundations and project components, the principal use of water would be for compaction and dust control. Smaller quantities would be required for preparation of the concrete required for foundations and other minor uses. After the earthwork activities, water usage will be used for dust suppression and normal construction water requirements that are associated with construction of the buildings, internal access roads, and revegetation.
The long-term average day operational water demand will be for the residential users and is anticipated to be approximately 35.08 million gallons per year or 107.64 acre-feet per year for the total build out of the Project. This is based on each residential unit having an average day water demand of 546 gallons per day (based on the 156-gallon per capita/day average in the 2020 City of Reedley Urban Water Management Plan and 3.5 people per unit) across the entire buildout of 176 units for the Project.
Figures 1-4 and 1-5 illustrate the location of the Project site within the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region, the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin and the Kings Subbasin, and the borders of these water resource areas. Construction and operational water for the Project will be from sources pumping groundwater from this basin. The KingsSubbasin does not have any adjudicated areas.
Introduction
Water Supply Assessment for West Haven II (TTM 6497) February 2025 D.R. Horton Page 1-3
Figure 1-1
Regional Location
Introduction
Water Supply Assessment for West Haven II (TTM 6497) February 2025 D.R. Horton Page 1-4
Figure 1-2
Project Site
Introduction
Water Supply Assessment for West Haven II (TTM 6497) February 2025 D.R. Horton Page 1-5
Figure 1-3
Project Site – Tentative Tract Map
Introduction
Water Supply Assessment for West Haven II (TTM 6497) February 2025 D.R. Horton Page 1-6
Figure 1-4
Project Location: Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region
Introduction
Water Supply Assessment for West Haven II (TTM 6497) February 2025 D.R. Horton Page 1-7
Figure 1-5
Project Location: Kings Groundwater Subbasin
Water Resources/Water Supply
Water Supply Assessment for West Haven II (TTM 6497) February 2025 D.R. Horton Page 2-1
SECTION 2 - WATER RESOURCES/WATER SUPPLY
2.1 - Proposed Water Supply
The project will be served by a public water system as required by Water Code section 10910(b). The purpose of the Water Supply Assessment is to determine “If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, the public water system may incorporate the requested information from the urban water management plan in preparing the elements of the assessment required to comply with subdivisions (d), (e), (f), and (g). If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was not accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, or the public water system has no urban water management plan, the water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the public water system's total projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the public water system's existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses.”
The City of Reedley is required to adopt an urban water management plan since the city serves more than 3,000 connections. The 2020 UWMP will be used for this water supply assessment. The 2020 UWMP will be used to obtain the following:
“a discussion with regard to whether the public water system's total projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project.”
In making the sufficiency determination, the public water system shall include an assessment of the following from Water Code Section 10910.
Water Code Section 10910
(a) Any city or county that determines that a project, as defined in Section 10912, is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) under Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code shall comply with this part.
(b) The city or county, at the time that it determines whether an environmental impact report, a negative declaration, or a mitigated negative declaration is required for any project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 21080.1 of the Public Resources Code, shall identify any water system whose service area includes the project site and any water system adjacent to the project site that is, or may become as a result of supplying water to the project identified pursuant to this subdivision, a public water system, as defined in Section 10912, that may supply water for the project. If the city or county is not able to identify any public Water Resources/Water Supply
Water Supply Assessment for West Haven II (TTM 6497) February 2025 D.R. Horton Page 2-2
water system that may supply water for the project, the city or county shall prepare the water assessment required by this part after consulting with any entity serving domestic water supplies whose service area includes the project site, the local agency formation commission, and any public water system adjacent to the project site. (c) (1) The city or county, at the time it makes the determination required under Section 21080.1 of the Public Resources Code, shall request each public water system identified pursuant to subdivision (b) to determine whether the projected water demand associated with a proposed project was included as part of the most recently adopted urban water management plan adopted pursuant to Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 10610).
(2) If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, the public water system may incorporate the requested information from the urban water management plan in preparing the elements of the assessment required to comply with subdivisions (d), (e), (f), and (g).
(3) If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was not accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, or the public water system has no urban water management plan, the water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the public water system’s total projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the public water system’s existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses.
(4) If the city or county is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), the water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the total projected water supplies, determined to be available by the city or county for the project during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection, will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses.
The Project area consists of the General Plan land use of Low Density Residential. The longterm average day operational water demand will be for the residential users and is anticipated to be approximately 35.08 million gallons per year or 107.64 acre-feet per year for the total build out of the Project. This is based on each residential unit having an average day water demand of 546 gallons per day (based on the 156-gallon per capita/day average in the 2020 City of Reedley Urban Water Management Plan and 3.5 people per unit) across the entire buildout of 176 units for the Project.
Project water supply during construction and for the developed properties is proposed to be from the City of Reedley.
Water Resources/Water Supply
Water Supply Assessment for West Haven II (TTM 6497) February 2025 D.R. Horton Page 2-3
2.2 - Hydrologic Region
The Water Supply Assessment evaluates the physical availability of and adequate groundwater supply, in all “water years” for a 20-year period.
This Assessment describes the relevant Hydrologic Region, Basin, and Subbasin, describes the principal water agency (City of Reedley) serving and regulating Basin water planning and surface water importation, and lists water sufficiency and planning documents regarding the Basin. Section 3 includes the latest (2020) City of Reedley projection of water availability (ground) for the Basin for a 20-year period under the normal, single dry and multiple dry year scenarios, as required by SB 610.
Water Code Section 10910
(f) If a water supply for a proposed project includes groundwater, the following additional information shall be included in the water assessment:
(1) A review of any information contained in the urban water management plan relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project. (2)(A) A description of any groundwater basin or basins from which the proposed project will be supplied.
(B) For those basins for which a court or the board has adjudicated the rights to pump groundwater, a copy of the order or decree adopted by the court or the board and a description of the amount of groundwater the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), has the legal right to pump under the order or decree.
(C) For a basin that has not been adjudicated that is a basin designated as high- or medium-priority pursuant to Section 10722.4 , information regarding the following:
(i) Whether the department has identified the basin as being subject to critical conditions of overdraft pursuant to Section 12924 .
(ii) If a groundwater sustainability agency has adopted a groundwater sustainability plan or has an approved alternative, a copy of that alternative or plan. (D) For a basin that has not been adjudicated that is a basin designated as low- or very low priority pursuant to Section 10722.4 , information as to whether the department has identified the basin or basins as overdrafted or has projected that the basin will become overdrafted if present management conditions continue, in the most current bulletin of the department that characterizes the condition of the groundwater basin, and a detailed description by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), of the efforts being undertaken in the basin or basins to eliminate the long-term overdraft condition.
Water Resources/Water Supply
Water Supply Assessment for West Haven II (TTM 6497) February 2025 D.R. Horton Page 2-4
2.2.1 - GROUNDWATER - THE TULARE LAKE HYDROLOGIC REGION The California Department of Water Resources, (DWR) has divided the State into 10 Hydrologic Regions. The Project site is located within the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region in a Basin ranked as “high priority” in a statewide ranking of groundwater importance. The Region encompasses approximately 16,800 square miles (see Figure 1-4).
2.2.2 - THE KINGS GROUNDWATER SUBBASIN
As shown in Figure 2-1, the City of Reedley is located in the Kings Subbasin (DWR Subbasin 5-22.08) which is in the greater Tulare Lake hydrologic region (DWR Basin 5.22), and also within the larger San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin (CA Natural Resources Agency, 2018). The Kings Subbasin covers approximately 1,530 square miles. The Kings Subbasin is generally bounded: on the north by the San Joaquin River; on the west by the Fresno Slough; on the south by the Kings River and Cottonwood Creek; and on the east by the Sierra foothills.
Groundwater in the Basin is used for all water supply for the City of Reedley. The city participates in and is a member of the Kings River East Groundwater Sustainability Agency (KREGSA). The KREGSA adopted a Groundwater Sustainability Plan in January 2025.
Water Resources/Water Supply
Water Supply Assessment for West Haven II (TTM 6497) February 2025 D.R. Horton Page 2-1
Figure 2-1
Kings Groundwater Subbasin
Water Resources/Water Supply
Water Supply Assessment for West Haven II (TTM 6497) February 2025 D.R. Horton Page 2-1
2.3 - City of Reedley – 2020 UWMP
The proposed water for the project is located within the City of Reedley Sphere of Influence.
As such, the city has detailed information regarding groundwater in the area.
The city has an estimated service population of approximately 25,873 people. In 2020, approximately 5,030 acre-feet (1,639 million gallons) of water was delivered to an estimated 5,914 water service connections of which approximately 43% of the water use is for residential services. The remainder are for commercial, industrial uses and losses.
The city currently utilizes local groundwater and surface water as its source of water supply.
Groundwater is extracted by seven wells located within the city’s sphere of influence.
The Planning Documents
The following documents were essential to the development of this report:
• City of Reedley, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, December 2021 • Kings River East GSA Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP), January 2025 • Department of Water Resources Bulletin 118
Water Supply Sufficiency
Water Supply Assessment for West Haven II (TTM 6497) February 2025 D.R. Horton Page 3-1
SECTION 3 - WATER SUPPLY SUFFICIENCY
Water Code Section 10910, Section 4.5
…(c)(3) If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was not accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, or the public water system has no urban water management plan, the water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the public water system’s total projected water supplies available during normal, single, dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the public water system’s existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses.
The sufficiency of the Project water supply is analyzed on two bases: the physical availability of the city to provide water in the amounts required for Project construction and operation; and the estimates (in the 2020 City of Reedley Urban Water Management Plan) of normal water years, single dry water year and multiple dry water years, water supply and demandrelated water availability with respect to projected water demand during a 20-year projection. The city is a participant in the Kings River East Groundwater Sustainability Agency (KREGSA) that adopted a GSP in January 2025. The 2020 Urban Water Management Plan is in compliance with the KREGSA GSPs.
3.1 - Physical Availability
The information regarding the physical availability of water at and near to the Project site supports the conclusion that the groundwater aquifer pumping history are sufficient for both Project construction and Project operation and that there will be sufficient water to serve project needs for 20 years under the water scenarios described below.
3.2 - The 2020 City of Reedley, Urban Water Management Plan – Water Years Adequacy Projections
The following text excerpted from the Urban Water Management Plan illustrates the total groundwater resources available to the City, and the projected usage demand on such supplies through 2045. The following text extract (Section 7.2.3 of the UWMP) explains the city water supply adequacy:
Based on the analysis of the City’s current/projected water supply sources, the City has sufficient resources to serve existing and future demands under normal, single dry year, and five consecutive dry years conditions. The City’s UWMP considers the reliability of meeting customer water use by analyzing plausible hydrological variability, regulatory variability, climate conditions, and other factors that could affect the City’s water supply and its customers’ water uses. No factors were found that indicate variation in supply reliability or customer demand due to drought.
Water Supply Sufficiency
Water Supply Assessment for West Haven II (TTM 6497) February 2025 D.R. Horton Page 3-2
The following tables from the 2020 City of Reedley Urban Water Master Plan show the supply and demand comparisons for a normal year, single dry year, and five consecutive dry years.
3.2.1 - AVERAGE (OR NORMAL) YEAR
Normal year supply and demand projections and differences are presented in Table 3-1 (Table 7-2 in UWMP).
Table 3-1
Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison (MG)
As shown in Table 3-1, future water supplies are anticipated to be meet.
3.2.2 - SINGLE DRY YEAR
Projected supplies were compared to the increased demands for a single-dry year and are presented in Table 3-2 (Table 7-3 in UWMP).
Table 3-2
Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison (MG)
As shown in Table 3-2, anticipated groundwater supplies are sufficient to meet all demands through the year 2045 even under single-year drought conditions.
3.2.3 - FIVE CONSECUTIVE DRY-YEAR RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT Projected supplies were compared to the increased demands for five-consecutive dry-year scenarios and are presented in Table 3-3 (Table 7-4 in UWMP).
Water Supply Sufficiency
Water Supply Assessment for West Haven II (TTM 6497) February 2025 D.R. Horton Page 3-3
Table 3-3
Retail: Five Consecutive Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison (MG) As shown in Table 3-3, anticipated groundwater supplies are sufficient to meet all demands through the year 2045 even under multiple-dry year drought conditions.
The long-term average day operational water demand will be for the residential users and is anticipated to be approximately 35.08 million gallons per year or 107.64 acre-feet per year for the total build out of the Project. This is based on each residential unit having an average day water demand of 546 gallons per day (based on the 156-gallon per capita/day average in the 2020 City of Reedley Urban Water Management Plan and 3.5 people per unit) across the entire buildout of 176 units for the Project.
The Project is within the City Sphere of Influence and growth within the Sphere of Influence is what the UWMP considered in growth from 2025 to 2045. The Project water demand is included in the projected increase in water demand of 1,022 MG from 2025 to 2045 (Table 3-3). The Project long-term operational water demand is 1.25% (35.08 MG/2,817 MG) of the available water supply in the city.
The tables and accompanying text indicate that the responsible water agency for the Project area has taken appropriate steps to assure that the total water supply for the service area will be adequate.
3.3 - Water Supply Management
California Water Resources has defined the Kings Subbasin as “critically overdrafted.” Overdraft occurs where the average annual amount of groundwater extraction exceeds the long-term average annual supply of water to the basin. Sustainable yield is defined as the amount of groundwater pumping that can occur while maintaining groundwater at Water Supply Sufficiency
Water Supply Assessment for West Haven II (TTM 6497) February 2025 D.R. Horton Page 3-4
sustainable levels and avoiding undesirable results. The KREGSA GSP estimates the sustainable yield of the Kings Subbasin at 1,240,000 acre-feet/year. This results in a shortfall of approximately -122,000 acre-feet/year for the entire subbasin (11,000 acre-feet/year initial responsibility for the Kings River East GSA).
The KREGSA, along with the other GSAs in the Kings Basin, have determined the overdraft responsibility for each of the GSAs in the Subbasin by estimating their “groundwater impact,” which is essentially their groundwater pumping minus any natural and artificial forms of recharge.
According to the KREGSA’s GSP, there are several projects within the City of Reedley’s geographic area that may be implemented to offset a portion of the GSA’s groundwater extraction and eliminate long term overdraft of the Kings subbasin. According to the GSP, each project with be implemented either by the City of Reedley or the GSA. The projects will primarily help stabilize groundwater levels and increase the amount of groundwater in storage. Additionally, the projects can also provide groundwater quality benefits and/or reduce land subsidence. The GSP estimates that these projects would yield an estimated average annual volume of approximately 200,000 acre-feet/year if fully implemented as envisioned.
The Project is accounted for in the UWMP and the UWMP is in agreement with the KREGSA GSP. Because of this, the Project water demand is available from the groundwater in the area.
Conclusions
Water Supply Assessment for West Haven II (TTM 6497) February 2025 D.R. Horton Page 4-1
SECTION 4 - CONCLUSIONS
This Water Supply Assessment has provided the data and analysis needed to verify that a sufficient Project water supply is physically available (Section 3.1) by the end of 2025, and that the Project water supply is in accord with SB 610’s normal year/dry year/multiple dry year requirements, sufficient (Section 3.2).
It is recommended that the City of Reedley conclude that the proposed water supplies for the Project be found sufficient to meet the projected Project water demands.
References
Water Supply Assessment for West Haven II (TTM 6497) February 2025 D.R. Horton Page 5-1
SECTION 5 - REFERENCES
2003. Guidebook for Implementation of Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221 of 2001. (online): http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/use/sb_610_sb_221_guidebook/guidebook.pdf.
Accessed February 1, 2021
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2015. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118.135 p.
City of Reedley, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
APPENDIX A
CHAPTER 643, STATUTES OF 2001 (SENATE BILL 610)
Senate Bill No. 610
CHAPTER 643
An act to amend Section 21151.9 of the Public Resources Code, and to amend Sections 10631, 10656, 10910, 10911, 10912, and 10915 of, to repeal Section 10913 of, and to add and repeal Section 10657 of, the Water Code, relating to water. [ Filed with Secretary of State October 09, 2001.Approved by Governor October 09, 2001. ]
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 610, Costa. Water supply planning.
(1) Existing law requires every urban water supplier to identify, as part of its urban water management plan, the existing and planned sources of water available to the supplier over a prescribed 5-year period. Existing law prohibits an urban water supplier that fails to prepare or submit its urban water management plan to the Department of Water Resources from receiving drought assistance from the state until the plan is submitted.
This bill would require additional information to be included as part of an urban water management plan if groundwater is identified as a source of water available to the supplier. The bill would require an urban water supplier to include in the plan a description of all water supply projects and programs that may be undertaken to meet total projected water use. The bill would prohibit an urban water supplier that fails to prepare or submit the plan to the department from receiving funding made available from specified bond acts until the plan is submitted. The bill, until January 1, 2006, would require the department to take into consideration whether the urban water supplier has submitted an updated plan, as specified, in determining eligibility for funds made available pursuant to any program administered by the department.
(2) Existing law, under certain circumstances, requires a city or county that determines an environmental impact report is required in connection with a project, as defined, to request each public water system that may supply water for the project to assess, among other things, whether its total projected water supplies will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project. Existing law requires the public water system to submit the assessment to the city or county not later than 30 days from the date on which the request was received and, in the absence of the submittal of an assessment, provides that it shall be assumed that the public water system has no information to submit. Existing law makes legislative findings and declarations concerning “Proposition C,” a measure approved by the voters of San Diego County relating to regional growth management, and provides that the procedures established by a specified review board established in connection with that measure are deemed to comply with the requirements described above relating to water supply planning by a city or county.
This bill would revise those provisions. The bill, instead, would require a city or county that determines a project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act to identify any public water system that may supply water for the project and to request those public water systems to prepare a specified water supply assessment, except as otherwise specified. The bill would require the assessment to include, among other information, an identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project and water received in prior years pursuant to those entitlements, rights, and contracts. The bill would require the city or county, if it is not able to identify any public water system that may supply water for the project, to prepare the water supply assessment after a prescribed consultation. The bill would revise the definition of “project,” for the purposes of these provisions, and make related changes.
The bill would prescribe a timeframe within which a public water system is required to submit the assessment to the city or county and would authorize the city or county to seek a writ of mandamus to compel the public water system to comply with requirements relating to the submission of the assessment.
The bill would require the public water system, or the city or county, as applicable, if that entity concludes that water supplies are, or will be, insufficient, to submit the plans for acquiring additional water supplies.
The bill would require the city or county to include the water supply assessment and certain other information in any environmental document prepared for the project pursuant to the act. By establishing duties for counties and cities, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The bill would provide that the County of San Diego is deemed to comply with these water supply planning requirements if the Office of Planning and Research determines that certain requirements have been met in connection with the implementation of “Proposition C.” (3) The bill would incorporate additional changes in Section 10631 of the Water Code proposed by AB 901, to be operative only if this bill and AB 901 are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2002, each bill amends Section 10631 of the Water Code, and this bill is enacted last. (4) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
DIGEST KEY
BILL TEXT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
(a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(1) The length and severity of droughts in California cannot be predicted with any accuracy. (2) There are various factors that affect the ability to ensure that adequate water supplies are available to meet all of California’s water demands, now and in the future. (3) Because of these factors, it is not possible to guarantee a permanent water supply for all water users in California in the amounts requested.
(4) Therefore, it is critical that California’s water agencies carefully assess the reliability of their water supply and delivery systems.
(5) Furthermore, California’s overall water delivery system has become less reliable over the last 20 years because demand for water has continued to grow while new supplies have not been developed in amounts sufficient to meet the increased demand.
(6) There are a variety of measures for developing new water supplies including water reclamation, water conservation, conjunctive use, water transfers, seawater desalination, and surface water and groundwater storage.
(7) With increasing frequency, California’s water agencies are required to impose water rationing on their residential and business customers during this state’s frequent and severe periods of drought. (8) The identification and development of water supplies needed during multiple-year droughts is vital to California’s business climate, as well as to the health of the agricultural industry, environment, rural communities, and residents who continue to face the possibility of severe water cutbacks during water shortage periods.
(9) A recent study indicates that the water supply and land use planning linkage, established by Part
2.10 (commencing with Section 10910) of Division 6 of the Water Code, has not been implemented in a manner that ensures the appropriate level of communication between water agencies and planning agencies, and this act is intended to remedy that deficiency in communication. (b) It is the intent of the Legislature to strengthen the process pursuant to which local agencies determine the adequacy of existing and planned future water supplies to meet existing and planned future demands on those water supplies.
SEC. 2.
Section 21151.9 of the Public Resources Code is amended to read:
21151.9.
Whenever a city or county determines that a project, as defined in Section 10912 of the Water Code, is subject to this division, it shall comply with Part 2.10 (commencing with Section 10910) of Division 6 of the Water Code.
SEC. 3.
Section 10631 of the Water Code is amended to read:
10631.
A plan shall be adopted in accordance with this chapter and shall do all of the following:
(a) Describe the service area of the supplier, including current and projected population, climate, and other demographic factors affecting the supplier’s water management planning. The projected population estimates shall be based upon data from the state, regional, or local service agency population projections within the service area of the urban water supplier and shall be in five-year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available.
(b) Identify and quantify, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water available to the supplier over the same five-year increments as described in subdivision (a). If groundwater is identified as an existing or planned source of water available to the supplier, all of the following information shall be included in the plan:
(1) A copy of any groundwater management plan adopted by the urban water supplier, including plans adopted pursuant to Part 2.75 (commencing with Section 10750), or any other specific authorization for groundwater management.
(2) A description of any groundwater basin or basins from which the urban water supplier pumps groundwater. For those basins for which a court or the board has adjudicated the rights to pump groundwater, a copy of the order or decree adopted by the court or the board and a description of the amount of groundwater the urban water supplier has the legal right to pump under the order or decree. For basins that have not been adjudicated, information as to whether the department has identified the basin or basins as overdrafted or has projected that the basin will become overdrafted if present management conditions continue, in the most current official departmental bulletin that characterizes the condition of the groundwater basin, and a detailed description of the efforts being undertaken by the urban water supplier to eliminate the long-term overdraft condition. (3) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater pumped by the urban water supplier for the past five years. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records. (4) A detailed description and analysis of the location, amount, and sufficiency of groundwater that is projected to be pumped by the urban water supplier. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records. (c) Describe the reliability of the water supply and vulnerability to seasonal or climatic shortage, to the extent practicable, and provide data for each of the following:
(1) An average water year.
(2) A single dry water year.
(3) Multiple dry water years.
For any water source that may not be available at a consistent level of use, given specific legal, environmental, water quality, or climatic factors, describe plans to replace that source with alternative sources or water demand management measures, to the extent practicable. (d) Describe the opportunities for exchanges or transfers of water on a short-term or long-term basis. (e) (1) Quantify, to the extent records are available, past and current water use, over the same fiveyear increments described in subdivision (a), and projected water use, identifying the uses among water use sectors, including, but not necessarily limited to, all of the following uses:
(A) Single-family residential.
(B) Multifamily.
(C) Commercial.
(D) Industrial.
(E) Institutional and governmental.
(F) Landscape.
(G) Sales to other agencies.
(H) Saline water intrusion barriers, groundwater recharge, or conjunctive use, or any combination thereof.
(I) Agricultural.
(2) The water use projections shall be in the same five-year increments as described in subdivision (a).
(f) Provide a description of the supplier’s water demand management measures. This description shall include all of the following:
(1) A description of each water demand management measure that is currently being implemented, or scheduled for implementation, including the steps necessary to implement any proposed measures, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(A) Water survey programs for single-family residential and multifamily residential customers. (B) Residential plumbing retrofit.
(C) System water audits, leak detection, and repair.
(D) Metering with commodity rates for all new connections and retrofit of existing connections. (E) Large landscape conservation programs and incentives. (F) High-efficiency washing machine rebate programs.
(G) Public information programs.
(H) School education programs.
(I) Conservation programs for commercial, industrial, and institutional accounts. (J) Wholesale agency programs.
(K) Conservation pricing.
(L) Water conservation coordinator.
(M) Water waste prohibition.
(N) Residential ultra-low-flush toilet replacement programs. (2) A schedule of implementation for all water demand management measures proposed or described in the plan.
(3) A description of the methods, if any, that the supplier will use to evaluate the effectiveness of water demand management measures implemented or described under the plan. (4) An estimate, if available, of existing conservation savings on water use within the supplier’s service area, and the effect of such savings on the supplier’s ability to further reduce demand. (g) An evaluation of each water demand management measure listed in paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) that is not currently being implemented or scheduled for implementation. In the course of the evaluation, first consideration shall be given to water demand management measures, or combination of measures, that offer lower incremental costs than expanded or additional water supplies. This evaluation shall do all of the following:
(1) Take into account economic and noneconomic factors, including environmental, social, health, customer impact, and technological factors.
(2) Include a cost-benefit analysis, identifying total benefits and total costs. (3) Include a description of funding available to implement any planned water supply project that would provide water at a higher unit cost.
(4) Include a description of the water supplier’s legal authority to implement the measure and efforts to work with other relevant agencies to ensure the implementation of the measure and to share the cost of implementation.
(h) Include a description of all water supply projects and water supply programs that may be undertaken by the urban water supplier to meet the total projected water use as established pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 10635. The urban water supplier shall include a detailed description of expected future projects and programs, other than the demand management programs identified pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f), that the urban water supplier may implement to increase the amount of the water supply available to the urban water supplier in average, single dry, and multiple dry water years. The description shall identify specific projects and include a description of the increase in water supply that is expected to be available from each project. The description shall include an estimate with regard to the implementation timeline for each project or program.
(i) Urban water suppliers that are members of the California Urban Water Conservation Council and submit annual reports to that council in accordance with the “Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California,” dated September 1991, may submit the annual reports identifying water demand management measures currently being implemented, or scheduled for implementation, to satisfy the requirements of subdivisions (f) and (g).
SEC. 3.5.
Section 10631 of the Water Code is amended to read:
10631.
A plan shall be adopted in accordance with this chapter and shall do all of the following:
(a) Describe the service area of the supplier, including current and projected population, climate, and other demographic factors affecting the supplier’s water management planning. The projected population estimates shall be based upon data from the state, regional, or local service agency population projections within the service area of the urban water supplier and shall be in five-year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available.
(b) Identify and quantify, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water available to the supplier over the same five-year increments as described in subdivision (a). If groundwater is identified as an existing or planned source of water available to the supplier, all of the following information shall be included in the plan:
(1) A copy of any groundwater management plan adopted by the urban water supplier, including plans adopted pursuant to Part 2.75 (commencing with Section 10750), or any other specific authorization for groundwater management.
(2) A description of any groundwater basin or basins from which the urban water supplier pumps groundwater. For those basins for which a court or the board has adjudicated the rights to pump groundwater, a copy of the order or decree adopted by the court or the board and a description of the amount of groundwater the urban water supplier has the legal right to pump under the order or decree. For basins that have not been adjudicated, information as to whether the department has identified the basin or basins as overdrafted or has projected that the basin will become overdrafted if present management conditions continue, in the most current official departmental bulletin that characterizes the condition of the groundwater basin, and a detailed description of the efforts being undertaken by the urban water supplier to eliminate the long-term overdraft condition. (3) A detailed description and analysis of the location, amount, and sufficiency of groundwater pumped by the urban water supplier for the past five years. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records. (4) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater that is projected to be pumped by the urban water supplier. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records. (c) Describe the reliability of the water supply and vulnerability to seasonal or climatic shortage, to the extent practicable, and provide data for each of the following:
(1) An average water year.
(2) A single dry water year.
(3) Multiple dry water years.
For any water source that may not be available at a consistent level of use, given specific legal, environmental, water quality, or climatic factors, describe plans to supplement or replace that source with alternative sources or water demand management measures, to the extent practicable. (d) Describe the opportunities for exchanges or transfers of water on a short-term or long-term basis. (e) (1) Quantify, to the extent records are available, past and current water use, over the same fiveyear increments described in subdivision (a), and projected water use, identifying the uses among water use sectors, including, but not necessarily limited to, all of the following uses:
(A) Single-family residential.
(B) Multifamily.
(C) Commercial.
(D) Industrial.
(E) Institutional and governmental.
(F) Landscape.
(G) Sales to other agencies.
(H) Saline water intrusion barriers, groundwater recharge, or conjunctive use, or any combination thereof.
(I) Agricultural.
(2) The water use projections shall be in the same five-year increments as described in subdivision (a).
(f) Provide a description of the supplier’s water demand management measures. This description shall include all of the following:
(1) A description of each water demand management measure that is currently being implemented, or scheduled for implementation, including the steps necessary to implement any proposed measures, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(A) Water survey programs for single-family residential and multifamily residential customers. (B) Residential plumbing retrofit.
(C) System water audits, leak detection, and repair.
(D) Metering with commodity rates for all new connections and retrofit of existing connections. (E) Large landscape conservation programs and incentives. (F) High-efficiency washing machine rebate programs.
(G) Public information programs.
(H) School education programs.
(I) Conservation programs for commercial, industrial, and institutional accounts. (J) Wholesale agency programs.
(K) Conservation pricing.
(L) Water conservation coordinator.
(M) Water waste prohibition.
(N) Residential ultra-low-flush toilet replacement programs. (2) A schedule of implementation for all water demand management measures proposed or described in the plan.
(3) A description of the methods, if any, that the supplier will use to evaluate the effectiveness of water demand management measures implemented or described under the plan. (4) An estimate, if available, of existing conservation savings on water use within the supplier’s service area, and the effect of the savings on the supplier’s ability to further reduce demand. (g) An evaluation of each water demand management measure listed in paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) that is not currently being implemented or scheduled for implementation. In the course of the evaluation, first consideration shall be given to water demand management measures, or combination of measures, that offer lower incremental costs than expanded or additional water supplies. This evaluation shall do all of the following:
(1) Take into account economic and noneconomic factors, including environmental, social, health, customer impact, and technological factors.
(2) Include a cost-benefit analysis, identifying total benefits and total costs. (3) Include a description of funding available to implement any planned water supply project that would provide water at a higher unit cost.
(4) Include a description of the water supplier’s legal authority to implement the measure and efforts to work with other relevant agencies to ensure the implementation of the measure and to share the cost of implementation.
(h) Include a description of all water supply projects and water supply programs that may be undertaken by the urban water supplier to meet the total projected water use as established pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 10635. The urban water supplier shall include a detailed description of expected future projects and programs, other than the demand management programs identified pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f), that the urban water supplier may implement to increase the amount of the water supply available to the urban water supplier in average, single dry, and multiple dry water years. The description shall identify specific projects and include a description of the increase in water supply that is expected to be available from each project. The description shall include an estimate with regard to the implementation timeline for each project or program.
(i) Urban water suppliers that are members of the California Urban Water Conservation Council and submit annual reports to that council in accordance with the “Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California,” dated September 1991, may submit the annual reports identifying water demand management measures currently being implemented, or scheduled for implementation, to satisfy the requirements of subdivisions (f) and (g).
SEC. 4.
Section 10656 of the Water Code is amended to read:
10656.
An urban water supplier that does not prepare, adopt, and submit its urban water management plan to the department in accordance with this part, is ineligible to receive funding pursuant to Division 24 (commencing with Section 78500) or Division 26 (commencing with Section 79000), or receive drought assistance from the state until the urban water management plan is submitted pursuant to this article.
SEC. 4.3.
Section 10657 is added to the Water Code, to read:
10657.
(a) The department shall take into consideration whether the urban water supplier has submitted an updated urban water management plan that is consistent with Section 10631, as amended by the act that adds this section, in determining whether the urban water supplier is eligible for funds made available pursuant to any program administered by the department. (b) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2006, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2006, deletes or extends that date.
SEC. 4.5.
Section 10910 of the Water Code is amended to read:
10910.
(a) Any city or county that determines that a project, as defined in Section 10912, is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) under Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code shall comply with this part. (b) The city or county, at the time that it determines whether an environmental impact report, a negative declaration, or a mitigated negative declaration is required for any project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 21080.1 of the Public Resources Code, shall identify any water system that is, or may become as a result of supplying water to the project identified pursuant to this subdivision, a public water system, as defined in Section 10912, that may supply water for the project. If the city or county is not able to identify any public water system that may supply water for the project, the city or county shall prepare the water assessment required by this part after consulting with any entity serving domestic water supplies whose service area includes the project site, the local agency formation commission, and any public water system adjacent to the project site.
(c) (1) The city or county, at the time it makes the determination required under Section 21080.1 of the Public Resources Code, shall request each public water system identified pursuant to subdivision (b) to determine whether the projected water demand associated with a proposed project was included as part of the most recently adopted urban water management plan adopted pursuant to Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 10610).
(2) If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, the public water system may incorporate the requested information from the urban water management plan in preparing the elements of the assessment required to comply with subdivisions (d), (e), (f), and (g). (3) If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was not accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, or the public water system has no urban water management plan, the water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the public water system’s total projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the public water system’s existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses. (4) If the city or county is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), the water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the total projected water supplies, determined to be available by the city or county for the project during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection, will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses.
(d) (1) The assessment required by this section shall include an identification of any existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project, and a description of the quantities of water received in prior years by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), under the existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts.
(2) An identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts held by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), shall be demonstrated by providing information related to all of the following:
(A) Written contracts or other proof of entitlement to an identified water supply. (B) Copies of a capital outlay program for financing the delivery of a water supply that has been adopted by the public water system.
(C) Federal, state, and local permits for construction of necessary infrastructure associated with delivering the water supply.
(D) Any necessary regulatory approvals that are required in order to be able to convey or deliver the water supply.
(e) If no water has been received in prior years by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), under the existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts, the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), shall also include in its water supply assessment pursuant to subdivision (c), an identification of the other public water systems or water service contractholders that receive a water supply or have existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts, to the same source of water as the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), has identified as a source of water supply within its water supply assessments. (f) If a water supply for a proposed project includes groundwater, the following additional information shall be included in the water supply assessment:
(1) A review of any information contained in the urban water management plan relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project.
(2) A description of any groundwater basin or basins from which the proposed project will be supplied. For those basins for which a court or the board has adjudicated the rights to pump groundwater, a copy of the order or decree adopted by the court or the board and a description of the amount of groundwater the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), has the legal right to pump under the order or decree. For basins that have not been adjudicated, information as to whether the department has identified the basin or basins as overdrafted or has projected that the basin will become overdrafted if present management conditions continue, in the most current bulletin of the department that characterizes the condition of the groundwater basin, and a detailed description by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), of the efforts being undertaken in the basin or basins to eliminate the long-term overdraft condition. (3) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater pumped by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), for the past five years from any groundwater basin from which the proposed project will be supplied. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records. (4) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater that is projected to be pumped by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), from any basin from which the proposed project will be supplied. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records.
(5) An analysis of the sufficiency of the groundwater from the basin or basins from which the proposed project will be supplied to meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project. A water supply assessment shall not be required to include the information required by this paragraph if the public water system determines, as part of the review required by paragraph (1), that the sufficiency of groundwater necessary to meet the initial and projected water demand associated with the project was addressed in the description and analysis required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 10631.
(g) (1) Subject to paragraph (2), the governing body of each public water system shall submit the assessment to the city or county not later than 90 days from the date on which the request was received. The governing body of each public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this act pursuant to subdivision (b), shall approve the assessment prepared pursuant to this section at a regular or special meeting.
(2) Prior to the expiration of the 90-day period, if the public water system intends to request an extension of time to prepare and adopt the assessment, the public water system shall meet with the city or county to request an extension of time, which shall not exceed 30 days, to prepare and adopt the assessment.
(3) If the public water system fails to request an extension of time, or fails to submit the assessment notwithstanding the extension of time granted pursuant to paragraph (2), the city or county may seek a writ of mandamus to compel the governing body of the public water system to comply with the requirements of this part relating to the submission of the water supply assessment. (h) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, if a project has been the subject of a water supply assessment that complies with the requirements of this part, no additional water supply assessment shall be required for subsequent projects that were part of a larger project for which a water supply assessment was completed and that has complied with the requirements of this part and for which the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), has concluded that its water supplies are sufficient to meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the existing and planned future uses, including, but not limited to, agricultural and industrial uses, unless one or more of the following changes occurs:
(1) Changes in the project that result in a substantial increase in water demand for the project. (2) Changes in the circumstances or conditions substantially affecting the ability of the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), to provide a sufficient supply of water for the project. (3) Significant new information becomes available which was not known and could not have been known at the time when the assessment was prepared.
SEC. 5.
Section 10911 of the Water Code is amended to read:
10911.
(a) If, as a result of its assessment, the public water system concludes that its water supplies are, or will be, insufficient, the public water system shall provide to the city or county its plans for acquiring additional water supplies, setting forth the measures that are being undertaken to acquire and develop those water supplies. If the city or county, if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), concludes as a result of its assessment, that water supplies are, or will be, insufficient, the city or county shall include in its water supply assessment its plans for acquiring additional water supplies, setting forth the measures that are being undertaken to acquire and develop those water supplies. Those plans may include, but are not limited to, information concerning all of the following:
(1) The estimated total costs, and the proposed method of financing the costs, associated with acquiring the additional water supplies.
(2) All federal, state, and local permits, approvals, or entitlements that are anticipated to be required in order to acquire and develop the additional water supplies. (3) Based on the considerations set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2), the estimated timeframes within which the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), expects to be able to acquire additional water supplies. (b) The city or county shall include the water supply assessment provided pursuant to Section 10910, and any information provided pursuant to subdivision (a), in any environmental document prepared for the project pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.
(c) The city or county may include in any environmental document an evaluation of any information included in that environmental document provided pursuant to subdivision (b). The city or county shall determine, based on the entire record, whether projected water supplies will be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. If the city or county determines that water supplies will not be sufficient, the city or county shall include that determination in its findings for the project.
SEC. 6.
Section 10912 of the Water Code is amended to read:
10912.
For the purposes of this part, the following terms have the following meanings:
(a) “Project” means any of the following:
(1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. (2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space.
(3) A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space.
(4) A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms. (5) A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area.
(6) A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision. (7) A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project.
(b) If a public water system has fewer than 5,000 service connections, then “project” means any proposed residential, business, commercial, hotel or motel, or industrial development that would account for an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of the public water system’s existing service connections, or a mixed-use project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by residential development that would represent an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of the public water system’s existing service connections.
(c) “Public water system” means a system for the provision of piped water to the public for human consumption that has 3000 or more service connections. A public water system includes all of the following:
(1) Any collection, treatment, storage, and distribution facility under control of the operator of the system which is used primarily in connection with the system. (2) Any collection or pretreatment storage facility not under the control of the operator that is used primarily in connection with the system.
(3) Any person who treats water on behalf of one or more public water systems for the purpose of rendering it safe for human consumption.
SEC. 7.
Section 10913 of the Water Code is repealed.
SEC. 8.
Section 10915 of the Water Code is amended to read:
10915.
The County of San Diego is deemed to comply with this part if the Office of Planning and Research determines that all of the following conditions have been met:
(a) Proposition C, as approved by the voters of the County of San Diego in November 1988, requires the development of a regional growth management plan and directs the establishment of a regional planning and growth management review board.
(b) The County of San Diego and the cities in the county, by agreement, designate the San Diego Association of Governments as that review board.
(c) A regional growth management strategy that provides for a comprehensive regional strategy and a coordinated economic development and growth management program has been developed pursuant to Proposition C.
(d) The regional growth management strategy includes a water element to coordinate planning for water that is consistent with the requirements of this part. (e) The San Diego County Water Authority, by agreement with the San Diego Association of Governments in its capacity as the review board, uses the association’s most recent regional growth forecasts for planning purposes and to implement the water element of the strategy. (f) The procedures established by the review board for the development and approval of the regional growth management strategy, including the water element and any certification process established to ensure that a project is consistent with that element, comply with the requirements of this part. (g) The environmental documents for a project located in the County of San Diego include information that accomplishes the same purposes as a water supply assessment that is prepared pursuant to Section 10910.
SEC. 9.
Section 3.5 of this bill incorporates amendments to Section 10631 of the Water Code proposed by both this bill and AB 901. It shall only become operative if (1) both bills are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2002, (2) each bill amends Section 10631 of the Water Code, and (3) this bill is enacted after AB 901, in which case Section 3 of this bill shall not become operative.
SEC. 10.
No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.
APPENDIX B
2020 CITY OF REEDLEY, URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
MKN | 8405 N. FRESNO ST., STE. 120 | FRESNO, CA 93720 | T 559.500.4750 Prepared for:
City of Reedley
1733 Ninth Street
Reedley, CA 93654
Prepared by:
MKN & Associates, Inc.
8405 N. Fresno St., Ste. 120
Fresno, CA 93720
2020 Urban Water
Management Plan
December 2021
City of
Reedley
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
City of Reedley
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
March 2022
City Council Members
Mary Fast – Mayor
Robert Beck – Mayor Pro Tem
Mathew Tuttle – Council Member
Ray Soleno – Council Member
Anita Betancourt – Council Member
City Staff
Russ Robertson – Director of Public Works
John Ornellas – Water System Supervisor
Michael K Nunley & Associates Staff
Robert Lepore, GISP
Cindy Sevilla Esparza, EIT
Henry Liang, PE
Prepared by:
Robert Lepore, GISP
Project Manager
MKN & Associates, Inc.
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | i
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1 UWMP INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW .............................................................................................. 1‐1 New Requirements for 2020 Update ......................................................................................................................... 1‐1
1.1 UWMP Organization ...................................................................................................................................... 1‐1
1.2 UWMP in Relation to Other Efforts ............................................................................................................... 1‐4
1.3 UWMPs and Grant or Loan Eligibility............................................................................................................. 1‐4 CHAPTER 2 PLAN PREPARATION .............................................................................................................................. 2‐1 New Requirements for 2020 Update ......................................................................................................................... 2‐1
2.1 Plan Preparation ............................................................................................................................................ 2‐1
2.2 Basis for Preparing a Plan .............................................................................................................................. 2‐1
2.2.1 Public Water Systems .................................................................................................................................2‐1
2.2.2 Suppliers Serving Multiple Service Areas/Public Water Systems...............................................................2‐2
2.3 Regional Planning........................................................................................................................................... 2‐2
2.4 Individual or Regional Planning and Compliance........................................................................................... 2‐2
2.4.1 Regional UWMP..........................................................................................................................................2‐2
2.4.2 Regional Alliance.........................................................................................................................................2‐2
2.5 Fiscal or Calendar Year and Units of Measure ............................................................................................... 2‐3
2.5.1 Fiscal or Calendar Year................................................................................................................................2‐3
2.5.2 Reporting Complete 2020 Data ..................................................................................................................2‐3
2.5.3 Units of Measure ........................................................................................................................................2‐3
2.6 Coordination and Outreach ........................................................................................................................... 2‐4
2.6.1 Wholesale and Retail Coordination ............................................................................................................2‐4
2.6.2 Coordination with Other Agencies and the Community ............................................................................2‐4
2.6.3 Notice to Cities and Counties......................................................................................................................2‐5 CHAPTER 3 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................................ 3‐1 New Requirements for 2020 Update ......................................................................................................................... 3‐1
3.1 General Description ....................................................................................................................................... 3‐1
3.2 Service Area Boundary Maps......................................................................................................................... 3‐1 City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | ii
3.3 Service Area Climate ...................................................................................................................................... 3‐4
3.4 Service Area Population and Demographics.................................................................................................. 3‐4
3.4.1 Service Area Population..............................................................................................................................3‐4
3.4.2 Other Social, Economic, and Demographic Factors....................................................................................3‐6
3.5 Land Uses within Service Area ....................................................................................................................... 3‐6 CHAPTER 4 WATER USE CHARACTERIZATION .......................................................................................................... 4‐1 New Requirements for 2020 Update ......................................................................................................................... 4‐1
4.1 Non‐Potable Versus Potable Water Use ........................................................................................................ 4‐1
4.2 Past, Current, and Projected Water Use by Sector........................................................................................ 4‐1
4.2.1 Water Use Sectors Listed in Water Code....................................................................................................4‐2
4.2.2 Water Use Sectors in Addition to Those Listed in Water Code ..................................................................4‐2
4.2.3 Past Water Use ...........................................................................................................................................4‐3
4.2.4 Distribution System Water Loss..................................................................................................................4‐3
4.2.5 Current Water Use......................................................................................................................................4‐3
4.2.6 Projected Water Use...................................................................................................................................4‐4
4.2.7 Characteristic Five‐Year Water Use ............................................................................................................4‐6
4.3 Worksheets and Reporting Tables................................................................................................................. 4‐6
4.4 Water Use for Lower Income Households..................................................................................................... 4‐6
4.5 Climate Change Considerations..................................................................................................................... 4‐7 CHAPTER 5 SB X7‐7 BASELINE, TARGETS, and 2020 compliance.............................................................................. 5‐1 New Requirements for 2020 Update ......................................................................................................................... 5‐1
5.1 Guidance for Wholesale Suppliers................................................................................................................. 5‐1
5.2 SB X7‐7 Forms and Summary Tables.............................................................................................................. 5‐1
5.2.1 SBX7‐7 Verification Form (Baselines and Targets)......................................................................................5‐1
5.2.2 SB X7‐7 Compliance Form...........................................................................................................................5‐1
5.2.3 Submittal Tables 5‐1 and 5‐2 ......................................................................................................................5‐1
5.2.4 Regional UWMP/Regional Alliance.............................................................................................................5‐1
5.3 Baseline and Target Calculations for 2020 UWMPs....................................................................................... 5‐1
5.3.1 Supplier Submitted 2015 UMWP, No Change to Service Area ...................................................................5‐2 City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | iii
5.3.2 Supplier Did Not Submit 2015 UWMP........................................................................................................5‐2
5.3.3 Supplier Newly Subject to UWMP Requirements.......................................................................................5‐2
5.3.4 Distribution Area Expansion .......................................................................................................................5‐2
5.3.5 Distribution Area Contraction.....................................................................................................................5‐2
5.3.6 Large Partial Customers Become Whole Customers..................................................................................5‐2
5.4 Methods for Calculating Population and Gross Water Use ........................................................................... 5‐2
5.4.1 Service Area Population..............................................................................................................................5‐2
5.4.2 Gross Water Use .........................................................................................................................................5‐2
5.5 2020 Compliance Daily Per‐Capita Water Use (GPCD) .................................................................................. 5‐3
5.5.1 2020 Adjustments for Factors Outside of Supplier’s Control .....................................................................5‐3
5.5.2 Special Situations........................................................................................................................................5‐4
5.5.3 If Supplier Does Not Meet 2020 Target......................................................................................................5‐4
5.6 Regional Alliance............................................................................................................................................ 5‐4 CHAPTER 6 WATER SUPPLY CHARACTERIZATION .................................................................................................... 6‐1 New Requirements for 2020 Update ......................................................................................................................... 6‐1
6.1 Water Supply Analysis Overview ................................................................................................................... 6‐1
6.2 Water Supply Characterization ...................................................................................................................... 6‐1
6.2.1 Purchased or Imported Water....................................................................................................................6‐1
6.2.2 Groundwater...............................................................................................................................................6‐2
6.2.3 Surface Water.............................................................................................................................................6‐6
6.2.4 Stormwater.................................................................................................................................................6‐6
6.2.5 Wastewater and Recycled Water ...............................................................................................................6‐6
6.2.6 Desalinated Water Opportunities.............................................................................................................6‐10
6.2.7 Water Exchanges and Transfers ...............................................................................................................6‐10
6.2.8 Future Water Projects...............................................................................................................................6‐11
6.2.9 Summary of Existing and Planned Sources of Water................................................................................6‐11
6.2.10 Special Conditions.................................................................................................................................6‐12
6.3 Submittal Tables........................................................................................................................................... 6‐13
6.4 Energy Intensity ........................................................................................................................................... 6‐13 City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | iv
CHAPTER 7 WATER SERVICE RELIABILITY AND DROUGHT RISK ASSESSMENT ......................................................... 7‐1 New Requirements..................................................................................................................................................... 7‐1
7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 7‐1
7.2 Water Service Reliability Assessment............................................................................................................ 7‐1
7.2.1 Service Reliability – Constraints on Water Sources....................................................................................7‐3
7.2.2 Service Reliability – Year Type Characterization.........................................................................................7‐3
7.2.3 Water Service Reliability – Supply and Demand Comparison ....................................................................7‐6
7.2.4 Description of Management Tools and Options.........................................................................................7‐7
7.3 Drought Risk Assessment............................................................................................................................... 7‐7
7.3.1 DRA Data, Methods, and Basis for Water Shortage Condition...................................................................7‐8
7.3.2 DRA Individual Water Source Reliability.....................................................................................................7‐8
7.3.3 DRA Total Water Supply and Use Comparison ...........................................................................................7‐8 CHAPTER 8 WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLANNING...................................................................................... 8‐1
8.1 Water Supply Reliability Analysis................................................................................................................... 8‐1
8.2 Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment Procedures ....................................................................... 8‐1
8.2.1 Decision‐Making Process............................................................................................................................8‐2
8.2.2 Data and Methodologies ............................................................................................................................8‐2
8.3 Six Standard Water Shortage Levels.............................................................................................................. 8‐2
8.4 Shortage Response Actions............................................................................................................................ 8‐7
8.4.1 Demand Reduction .....................................................................................................................................8‐7
8.4.2 Supply Augmentation .................................................................................................................................8‐8
8.4.3 Operational Changes ..................................................................................................................................8‐8
8.4.4 Additional Mandatory Restrictions.............................................................................................................8‐8
8.4.5 Emergency Response Plan ..........................................................................................................................8‐8
8.4.6 Seismic Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plan ...........................................................................................8‐9
8.4.7 Shortage Response Action Effectiveness ...................................................................................................8‐9
8.5 Communication Protocols.............................................................................................................................. 8‐9
8.6 Compliance and Enforcement........................................................................................................................ 8‐9
8.7 Legal Authorities.......................................................................................................................................... 8‐10 City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | v
8.8 Financial Consequences of WSCP ................................................................................................................ 8‐10
8.9 Monitoring and Reporting ........................................................................................................................... 8‐10
8.10 WSCP Refinement Procedures..................................................................................................................... 8‐10
8.11 Special Water Feature Distinction ............................................................................................................... 8‐11
8.12 Plan Adoption, Submittal and Availability ................................................................................................... 8‐11 CHAPTER 9 DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES ................................................................................................... 9‐1 New Requirements for 2020 Update ......................................................................................................................... 9‐1
9.1 Demand Management Measures for Wholesale Suppliers........................................................................... 9‐1
9.2 Existing Demand Management Measures for Retail Suppliers...................................................................... 9‐1
9.2.1 Water Waste Prevention Ordinances.........................................................................................................9‐1
9.2.2 Metering .....................................................................................................................................................9‐2
9.2.3 Conservation Pricing ...................................................................................................................................9‐2
9.2.4 Public Education and Outreach ..................................................................................................................9‐2
9.2.5 Programs to Assess and Manage Distribution System Real Loss................................................................9‐3
9.2.6 Water Conservation Program Coordination and Staffing Support.............................................................9‐3
9.2.7 Other Demand Management Measures.....................................................................................................9‐4
9.3 Implementation over the Past Five Years...................................................................................................... 9‐5
9.3.1 Implementation Over the Past Five Years ..................................................................................................9‐5
9.3.2 Implementation to Achieve Water Use Targets .........................................................................................9‐6
9.4 Water Use Objectives (Future Requirements)............................................................................................... 9‐6 CHAPTER 10 PLAN ADOPTION, SUBMITTAL, AND IMPLEMENTATION..................................................................... 10‐1 New Requirements................................................................................................................................................... 10‐1
10.1 Inclusion of all 2020 Data............................................................................................................................. 10‐1
10.2 Notice of Public Hearing .............................................................................................................................. 10‐1
10.2.1 Notice to Cities and Counties ...............................................................................................................10‐1
10.2.2 Notice to the Public ..............................................................................................................................10‐2
10.3 Public Hearing and Adoption ....................................................................................................................... 10‐2
10.3.1 Public Hearing.......................................................................................................................................10‐2
10.3.2 Adoption ...............................................................................................................................................10‐3 City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | vi
10.4 Plan Submittal.............................................................................................................................................. 10‐3
10.4.1 Submitting a UWMP and Water Shortage Contingency Plan to DWR..................................................10‐3
10.4.2 Electronic Data Submittal .....................................................................................................................10‐3
10.4.3 Submitting a UWMP, including WSCP, to the California State Library.................................................10‐3
10.4.4 Submitting a UWMP to Cities and Counties.........................................................................................10‐4
10.5 Public Availability ......................................................................................................................................... 10‐4
10.6 Notification to Public Utilities Commission ................................................................................................. 10‐4
10.7 Amending an Adopted UWMP or Water Shortage Contingency Plan ......................................................... 10‐4
10.7.1 Amending a UWMP ..............................................................................................................................10‐5
10.7.2 Amending a Water Shortage Contingency Plan ...................................................................................10‐5
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | vii
List of Tables
Table 1‐1 Water Code Changes since 2015 UWMP........................................................................................................ 1‐3 Table 2‐1 Retail Only: Public Water Systems.................................................................................................................. 2‐2 Table 2‐2: Plan Identification.......................................................................................................................................... 2‐3 Table 2‐3: Supplier Identification ................................................................................................................................... 2‐3 Table 2‐4 Retail: Water Supplier Information Exchange ................................................................................................ 2‐4 Table 2‐5 Agency Coordination ...................................................................................................................................... 2‐5 Table 3‐1: Climate Conditions for Calendar Year 2020................................................................................................... 3‐4 Table 3‐2 Retail: Population ‐ Current and Projected..................................................................................................... 3‐5 Table 3‐3: Existing and Projected Land Use.................................................................................................................... 3‐8 Table 4‐0: Historical Water Usage .................................................................................................................................. 4‐3 Table 4‐1 Retail: Demands for Potable and Raw Water ‐ Actual.................................................................................... 4‐4 Table 4‐1a: Historical Use Rates (GPCD)......................................................................................................................... 4‐5 Table 4‐2 Retail: Demands for Potable and Non‐Potable Water ‐ Projected ................................................................. 4‐5 Table 4‐3 Retail: Total Water Demands.......................................................................................................................... 4‐5 Table 4‐4 Retail: 12 Month Water Loss Audit Reporting................................................................................................ 4‐6 Table 4‐4a: Characteristic Five‐Year Water Use ............................................................................................................. 4‐6 Table 4‐5 Retail Only: Inclusion in Water Use Projections ............................................................................................ 4‐7 Table 5‐1 Baselines and Targets Summary ..................................................................................................................... 5‐3 Table 5‐2: 2020 Compliance ........................................................................................................................................... 5‐3 Table 6‐1 Retail: Groundwater Volume Pumped............................................................................................................ 6‐6 Table 6‐2 Retail: Wastewater Collected Within Service Area in 2020........................................................................... 6‐7 Table 6‐3 Retail: Wastewater Treatment and Discharge Within Service Area in 2020 ................................................. 6‐8 Table 6‐4 Retail: Current and Projected Recycled Water Direct Beneficial Uses Within Service Area.......................... 6‐9 Table 6‐5 Retail: 2015 UWMP Recycled Water Use Projection Compared to 2020 Actual........................................... 6‐9 Table 6‐6 Retail: Methods to Expand Future Recycled Water Use............................................................................... 6‐10 Table 6‐7 Retail: Expected Future Water Supply Projects or Programs....................................................................... 6‐11 Table 6‐8 Retail: Water Supplies — Actual................................................................................................................... 6‐12 Table 6‐9 Retail: Water Supplies — Projected.............................................................................................................. 6‐12 City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | viii
Table 6‐10: Recommended Energy Intensity‐ Total Utility Approach .......................................................................... 6‐14 Table 7‐0: Climate Change Vulnerability Screening........................................................................................................ 7‐2 Table 7‐1 Retail: Basis of Water Year Data ..................................................................................................................... 7‐4 Table 7‐2 Retail: Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison ................................................................................... 7‐6 Table 7‐3 Retail: Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison ............................................................................... 7‐6 Table 7‐4 Retail: Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison.......................................................................... 7‐7 Table 7‐5: Five‐Year Drought Risk Assessment Tables to Address Water Code Section 10635(b)................................. 7‐9 Table 8‐1: Water Shortage Contingency Plan Levels...................................................................................................... 8‐3 Table 8‐2: Demand Reduction Actions .......................................................................................................................... 8‐7 Table 8‐3: Demand Reduction Actions .......................................................................................................................... 8‐8 Table 10‐1 Retail: Notification to Cities and Counties.................................................................................................. 10‐1 City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | ix
List of Figures
Figure 3‐1: City of Reedley Location Map....................................................................................................................... 3‐2 Figure 3‐2: City of Reedley Service Area Map ................................................................................................................ 3‐3 Figure 3‐3: 20‐year Population and Growth Rate Chart................................................................................................. 3‐5 Figure 3‐4: Land Uses within Service Area...................................................................................................................... 3‐7 Figure 6‐1: Kings Subbasin.............................................................................................................................................. 6‐3 Figure 7‐1: City Historic Rainfall Data ............................................................................................................................. 7‐4 Figure 8‐1: Crosswalk for the City’s 2015 Shortage Levels and the 2020 WSCP Mandated Shortage Levels ................ 8‐6
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | x
Appendices
Appendix A ‐ Upper Kings Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Climate Change Assessment Appendix B ‐ SB X7‐7 Verification Form submitted for the 2015 UWMP Appendix C ‐ SB X7‐7 2020 Compliance Form
Appendix D ‐ Kings Subbasin Description
Appendix E ‐ Wholesale Water Supply Agreement
Appendix F ‐ Consumer Confidence Report
Appendix G‐ Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Appendix H ‐ City of Reedley Rebate Promotions
Appendix I ‐ 60 Day Notification to Cities and Counties Appendix J ‐ Newspaper Notification
Appendix K ‐ Adoption Resolution
Appendix L ‐ 2020 UWMP Checklist
Appendix M ‐ UWMP Water Code
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | xi
Bibliography
The following reports, studies, and other material were reviewed during preparation of this Urban Water Management Plan update.
1) 2020 Urban Water Management Plans Guidebook for Urban Water Suppliers dated March 2021 and prepared by the California Department of Water Resources.
2) Completed American Water Works Association 2015 to 2019 Water Audits. 3) AWIA Risk and Resilience Assessment dated April 2021 and prepared by MKN & Associates. 4) 2015 Urban Water Management Plan dated June 2016 and prepared by AM Consulting Engineers, Inc. 5) City of Reedley Integrated Master Plan dated June 2014 and prepared by HDR. 6) City of Reedley General Plan 2030 dated February 2014 and prepared by the City of Reedley. 7) Upper Kings Basin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) dated July 2007 and prepared by wRIME.
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | xii
List of Acronyms
AB ‐ Assembly Bill HET/DFT ‐ High‐Efficiency Toilet
AF ‐ Acre‐Foot ID ‐ Identifier
AFY ‐ Acre‐Feet per Year IRWM ‐ Integrated Regional Water Management AID – Alta Irrigation District ITP ‐ Independent Technical Panel AWIA ‐ America’s Water Infrastructure Act JPA‐ Joint Powers Authority AWWA ‐ American Water Works Association KRCD – Kings River Conservation District BMP ‐ Best Management Practice MOA – Memorandum of Agreement CA ‐ California MOU‐ Memorandum of Understanding
CASGEM ‐ California Statewide Groundwater
Elevation Monitoring Program MG ‐ Million Gallons
City ‐ City of Reedley MGY ‐ Million Gallons per Year CD ‐ Compact Disc NA ‐ Not Applicable
CII ‐ Commercial, Industrial, Institutional, water
use sectors
NOAA ‐ National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
CID – Consolidated Irrigation District NPDES ‐ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System CIMIS ‐ California Irrigation Management
Information System PSA – Public Service Announcement
CUWCC ‐ California Urban Water Conservation
Council PWS ‐ Public Water System
CWC ‐ California Water Code RUWMP ‐ Regional Urban Water Management Plan DMMs ‐ Demand Management Measures RWQCB ‐ Regional Water Quality Control Board DOF ‐ Department of Finance SB ‐ Senate Bill
DRA ‐ Drought Risk Assessment SB X7‐7 ‐ Senate Bill Seven of the Senate’s Seventh Extraordinary Session of 2009
DU – Dwelling Unit SGMA ‐ Sustainable Groundwater Management Act DWR ‐ Department of Water Resources SQ FT – Square Feet eARDWP ‐ Electronic Annual Reports to the
Drinking Water Program (SWRCB) SOI – Sphere of Influence EIR ‐ Environmental Impact Report SWP ‐ State Water Project EPA ‐ Environmental Protection Agency SWRCB ‐ State Water Resources Control Board ETo ‐ Reference Evapotranspiration UWMP ‐ Urban Water Management Plan GAC ‐ Granular Activated Carbon WBIC ‐ Weather‐Based Irrigation Controllers GIS ‐ Geographic Information System WDR ‐ Waste Discharge Requirement GHG – Greenhouse Gase WRF ‐ Water Reclamation Facility GPCD ‐ Gallons per Capita per Day WRR ‐ Water Recycling Requirement GSA ‐ Groundwater Sustainability Agency WSCP ‐ Water Shortage Contingency Plan GSP ‐ Groundwater Sustainability Plan WUE ‐ Water Use Efficiency HECW ‐ High‐Efficiency Clothes Washer WWTP ‐ Wastewater Treatment Plant
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | 1‐1
CHAPTER 1 UWMP INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
The majority of the information contained in this chapter was taken from the State of California, Department of Water Resources Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook March 2021 to provide a general overview of the purpose of the UWMP update.
In 1983, the California Legislature enacted the Urban Water Management Planning Act (Act). The law required an urban water supplier (Supplier), providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or serving more than 3,000 acre‐feet annually, to adopt an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) every five years demonstrating water supply reliability in normal, single dry, and multiple dry years. The original Act also required the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to provide a report to the California Legislature on the status of water supply planning in California.
Since the Act was passed, it has undergone significant expansion and revision since the last UWMP Guidebook was prepared in 2015. Prolonged droughts, groundwater overdraft, regulatory revisions, and changing climatic conditions not only affect each Supplier’s water reliability determinations, but also the broad picture of statewide water reliability overseen by DWR, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), and the State of California Legislature (Legislature). Accordingly, the Act has grown to address changing conditions and it guides California’s water resource management.
This report comprises the 2020 UWMP update for the City of Reedley (City). The City is located along the Kings River in Fresno County, lying just inland between the State’s coastal mountain range and the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The City is a public agency that provides water and sewer service to all residential, commercial, and industrial customers and for fire protection uses. Covering approximately 5.08 square miles, the City serves a current population of 25,873 through approximately 5,914 active service connections.
New Requirements for 2020 Update
Per the California Water Code (Water Code), the following new requirements have been identified in the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook for Urban Water Suppliers and have been addressed throughout the report:
Five Consecutive Dry‐Year Water Reliability Assessment Drought Risk Assessment
Seismic Risk
Energy Use Information
Water Loss Reporting for Five Years
Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP)
Groundwater Supplies Coordination
Lay Person Description
1.1 UWMP Organization
This UWMP update was prepared based on guidance from the final draft of the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) “2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook for Urban Water Suppliers” dated March 2021 and follows the recommended chapter formatting identified in the guidebook and briefly described below.
Chapter 1 – UWMP Introduction and Lay Description. This chapter identifies changes since the 2015 UWMP, fundamentals of the 2020 UWMP, and the required lay description of the City and its service area. Some subsequent chapters also include an initial lay description.
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | 1‐2
Chapter 2 – Plan Preparation. This chapter provides information on processes used to develop the UWMP, including efforts in coordination and outreach.
Chapter 3 – System Description. This chapter includes maps of the service area, an explanation of the service area and climate, and detail on the public water system.
Chapter 4 –Water Use Characterization. This chapter provides a description and quantification of the current and projected water uses within the City’s service area.
Chapter 5 – Conservation Target Compliance. This chapter describes the City’s compliance with the 2020 per‐capita water conservation mandate, presents the City’s 2020 per‐capita target value that was adopted in the 2015 UWMP, and compliance with per‐capita target based upon actual 2020 customer water use.
Chapter 6 – Water Supply Characterization. This chapter provides a description and quantification of current and projected potable and non‐potable water supplies. A narrative description of each supply source and quantification of the supply availability for each supply source was identified.
Chapter 7 – Water Service Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment. This chapter describes the City’s water system reliability through at least a 20‐year planning horizon. The description includes normal, single dry year, and five consecutive dry years. The water system reliability differs from the Drought Risk Assessment (DRA) by allowing a different basis for characterizing the five consecutive dry years.
Chapter 8 – Water Shortage Contingency Plan. This chapter provides a structured plan for dealing with watershortages, incorporating prescriptive information and standardized action levels, along with implementation actions in the event of a catastrophic supply interruption.
Chapter 9 – Demand Management Measures. This chapter identifies the City’s efforts to promote conservation and to reduce demand on the water supply; specifically including a narrative describing efforts to implement demand management measures.
Chapter 10 – Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation. This chapter describes and documents the steps taken to make the UWMP publicly available, as well as the steps taken to adopt and submit the UWMP in accordance with the Water Code, and also describes the City’s plan to implement the UWMP.
Appendices – To support and further clarify information included in the main chapters of the UWMP, relevant information has been included in the appendix of this UWMP.
Table 1‐1 provides an overview of the applicable changes to the Water Code since the 2015 UWMP, which have been included in this 2020 update.
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | 1‐3
Table 1‐1 Water Code Changes since 2015 UWMP
Change
Number Topic CWC
Section Summary Guidebook
Section
1 System
Description 10631(a)
Suppliers shall coordinate with local or regional
land use authorities to determine the most
appropriate land uses information for projecting
water use in five‐year increments, up to the year
2045.
3.0 2
Other Social,
Economic, and
Demographic
Factors
10631
Describe the service area of the supplier, including
current and projected population, climate, and
other social, economic and demographic factors
affecting the supplier’s water management
planning.
3.4.2 3
Land Uses
within Service
Area
10631(a)
The description shall include the current and
projected land uses within the existing or
anticipated service area affecting the supplier's
water management planning.
3.5 4
Distribution
System Water
Loss
10635
Suppliers shall provide a simple lay description of
their projected water use for the foreseeable
future.
4.2.4 5
Distribution
System Water
Loss
10631(d)(3)
(A) and (C)
Suppliers shall provide quantified distribution
system losses for each of the five preceding years
and whether or not the state standard was met.
4.2.4 6
Characteristic
Five‐Year Water
Use
10635(b) Consideration of climate change in future
projections in regards to water supply. 4.2.7
7 Climate Change
Effects 10635(b)(1) Consideration of climate change in future projections in regards to water supply. 6.2 & 10.1
8 Drought Risk
Assessment 10635(b) DRA prepared as a component of the 2020 UWMP 7.3 9 Water Service
Reliability – Five
Consecutive Dry
Years
10635(b)(1)
Submittal Table 7‐4 is used for the Supplier's water
service reliability assessment for five consecutive
dry years, for each of the five‐year projection
increments out to at least 2040
7.2.1 &
7.2.3.3 10
Water Supply
Reliability
Analysis
10632(a)(1) Key attributes of its water supply reliability analysis 8.1 11 Six Standard
Water Shortage
Levels
10632
(a)(3)(A)
Six standard water shortage levels corresponding to
progressive ranges of up to 10‐, 20‐, 30‐, 40‐, and
50‐percent shortages and greater than 50‐percent
shortage.
8.3 12
Shortage
Response
Actions
10632 (a)(4)
Locally appropriate “shortage response actions” for
each shortage level, with a corresponding estimate
of the extent the action will address the gap
between supplies and demands.
8.4 13
Annual Water
Supply and
Demand
Assessment
Procedures
10632 (a)(2)
Suppliers are required to submit, by July 1 of each
year, beginning in the year following adoption of
the 2020 UWMP, an annual water shortage
assessment report to the California Department of
Water Resources (DWR).
8.2 City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | 1‐4
Table 1‐1 Water Code Changes since 2015 UWMP
14 Communication
Protocols 10632 (a)(5)
Communication protocols and procedures to inform
customers, the public, and government entities of
any current or predicted water shortages and
associated response actions.
8.5 15 Monitoring and
reporting 10632(a)(9)
Monitoring and reporting procedures to assure
appropriate data is collected to monitor customer
compliance and to respond to any state reporting
requirements.
8.9 16
WSCP
Refinement
Procedures
10632(a)(10)
A reevaluation and improvement process to assess
the functionality of its WSCP and to make
appropriate adjustments as may be warranted.
8.10 1.2 UWMP in Relation to Other Efforts
A UWMP is prepared by local Suppliers that have the in‐depth and practical knowledge of their water systems. The information contained in each Supplier’s UWMP reflects the operations of its system in the context of the Supplier’s customers,supplies, and service area. Thislocal planning and preparation remainsthe fundamental focus of the UWMP.
In addition to the local Supplier focus, the UWMP requires coordination with other planning agencies and is most effective when integrated with other planning efforts. Land‐use planning agencies, such as cities and counties, prepare General Plans and Specific Plansthat affect a Supplier’s analysis provided in its UWMP, and vice versa. Moreover, Water Master Plans, facilities’ plans, Recycled Water Master Plans, Integrated Regional Water Management Plans, Regional Climate Action Plans, Groundwater Sustainability Plans, AB 3030 Groundwater Management Plans, local or regional Hazard Mitigation Plans, and others need to be synthesized with a Supplier’s UWMP to ensure a holistic planning process.
For this UWMP, elements of the following reports and documents were utilized to develop the required sections of the plan (a brief description is provided for the relevant information contained in each document):
2015 Urban Water Management Plan: Served as the basis for the 2020 update. City of Reedley General Plan 2030 (February 2014): Contains historical and future population projections. City of Reedley Integrated Master Plan (June 2014): Contains future projects and project projections. Upper Kings Basin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) (July 2007): Contains information to address climate change within the service area.
1.3 UWMPs and Grant or Loan Eligibility
In order for a Supplier to be eligible for any water grant or loan administered by DWR, the Supplier must have a current UWMP on file that has been determined by DWR to address the requirements of the Water Code. A current UWMP must also be maintained by the Supplier throughout the term of any grant or loan administered by DWR. A UWMP may also be required in order to be eligible for other state funding, depending on the conditions that are specified in the funding guidelines. Suppliers are encouraged to seek guidance on the specifics of any state funding source from the respective funding agencies. The following sections of the Water Code are pertinent to Suppliers considering pursuit of grants or loans.
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | 1‐5
Law
CWC 10608.56
(a) On and after July 1, 2016, an urban retail watersupplier is not eligible for a water grant or loan awarded or administered by the state unless the supplier complies with this part. (c) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the department shall determine that an urban retail water supplier is eligible for a water grant or loan even though the supplier has not met the per capita reductions required pursuant to Section 10608.24, if the urban retail water supplier has submitted to the department for approval a schedule, financing plan, and budget, to be included in the grant or loan agreement, for achieving the per capita reductions. The supplier may request grant or loan funds to achieve the per capita reductions to the extent the request is consistent with the eligibility requirements applicable to the water funds.
(e) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the department shall determine that an urban retail water supplier is eligible for a water grant or loan even though the supplier has not met the per capita reductions required pursuant to Section 10608.24, if the urban retail water supplier has submitted to the department for approval documentation demonstrating that its entire service area qualifies as a disadvantaged community. (f) The department shall not deny eligibility to an urban retail water supplier or agricultural water supplier in compliance with the requirements of this part and Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 10800), that is participating in a multiagency water project, or an integrated regional water management plan, developed pursuant to Section 75026 of the Public Resources Code, solely on the basis that one or more of the agencies participating in the project or plan is not implementing all of the requirements of this part or Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 10800).
CWC 10608.56
An urban water supplier is not eligible for a water grant or loan awarded or administered by the state unless the urban water supplier complies with this part.
California Code of Regulations Section 596.1
(b)(2) “disadvantaged community” means a community with a median household income that is less than 80 percent of the statewide annual median household income.
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | 2‐1
CHAPTER 2 PLAN PREPARATION
New Requirements for 2020 Update
Per the Guidebook, the preparation and periodic update of a Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) is now required, which is included in the UWMP but adopted and amended independent of the UWMP. Coordination with land use agencies, GSAs, and other relevant regional or local authorities is now required as part of preparing the UWMP and the WSCP.
2.1 Plan Preparation
This chapter includes information about the following elements required for the City of Reedley 2020 UWMP update:
Basis for Preparing a Plan
Regional Planning
Individual or Regional Planning and Compliance
Fiscal or Calendar Year and Units of Measure
Coordination and Outreach
2.2 Basis for Preparing a Plan
Law
CWC 10617
“Urban water supplier” means a supplier, either publicly or privately owned, providing water for municipal purposes either directly or indirectly to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre‐feet of water annually. An urban water supplier includes a supplier or contractor for water, regardless of the basis of right, which distributes or sells for ultimate resale to customers. This part applies only to water supplied from public water systems.
CWC 10620
(b) Every person that becomes an urban water supplier shall adopt an urban water management plan within one year after it has become an urban water supplier.
CWC 10621
(a) Each urban water supplier shall update its plan at least once every five years on or before July 1, in years ending in six and one, incorporating updated and new information from the five years preceding each update. (d) Each urban water supplier shall update and submit its 2020 plan to the department by July 1, 2021.
2.2.1 Public Water Systems
Law
CWC 10644
(a)(2) The plan, or amendments to the plan, submitted to the department … shall include any standardized forms, tables, or displays specified by the department.
California Health and Safety Code 116275
(h) “Public Water System” means a system for the provision of water for human consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances that has 15 or more service connections or regularly serves at least 25 individuals daily at least 60 days out of the year.
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | 2‐2
Table 2‐1 provides a summary of the number of connections and total volume of water supplied by the City to their customers for calendar year 2020.
Table 2‐1 Retail Only: Public Water Systems
Public Water System
Number
Public Water System
Name
Number of Municipal
Connections 2020
Volume of
Water Supplied
2020 (MG)
CA4010002 City of Reedley 5,914 1,639
TOTAL 5,914 1,639
2.2.2 Suppliers Serving Multiple Service Areas/Public Water Systems The City is a water retailer and only provides service to customers within the City limits, therefore this section is not applicable to the City’s UWMP update.
2.3 Regional Planning
The City is a member of the Upper Kings Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP). As a member of the IRWMP, the City coordinates with all water suppliers and users. The City developed the 2020 UWMP Update solely on the City’s service area.
2.4 Individual or Regional Planning and Compliance
2.4.1 Regional UWMP
Law
CWC 10620
(d)(1) An urban water supplier may satisfy the requirements of this part by participation in area wide, regional, watershed, or basin wide urban water management planning where those plans will reduce preparation costs and contribute to the achievement of conservation and efficient water use.
The City has developed an UWMP that reportssolely on itsservice area and will not be participating in a regional UWMP update.
2.4.2 Regional Alliance
Law
CWC 10608.20
(a)(1) …Urban retail water suppliers may elect to determine and report progress toward achieving these targets on an individual or regional basis as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 10608.28… CWC 10608.28
(a) An urban retail water supplier may meet its urban water use target within its retail service area, or through mutual agreement by any of the following:
(1) Through an urban wholesale water supplier.
(2) Through a regional agency authorized to plan and implement water conservation, including, but not limited to, an agency established under the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency Act (Division 31 (commencing with Section 81300)).
(3) Through a regional water management group as defined in Section 10537. (4) By an integrated regional water management funding area. (5) By hydrologic region.
(6) Through other appropriate geographic scales for which computation methods have been developed by the department.
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | 2‐3
(b) A regional water management group, with the written consent of its member agencies, may undertake any or all planning, reporting, and implementation functions under this chapter for the member agencies that consent to those activities. Any data or reports shall provide information both for the regional water management group and separately for each consenting urban retail water supplier and urban wholesale water supplier.
The City has developed an UWMP that reports solely on its service area and will not participate in a Regional Urban Water Management Plan, as stated in Table 2‐2.
Table 2‐2: Plan Identification
Select Only
One Type of Plan Name of RUWMP or Regional Allianceif applicable Individual UWMP
Water Supplier is also a member of a
RUWMP
Water Supplier is also a member of a
Regional Alliance
Regional Urban Water Management Plan
(RUWMP)
2.5 Fiscal or Calendar Year and Units of Measure
2.5.1 Fiscal or Calendar Year
Law
CWC 1608.20
(a)(1) Urban retail water suppliers…may determine the targets on a fiscal year or calendar year basis The City has reported water‐related information included in this UWMP on a calendar year basis and all units are measured in million gallons (MG) as identified in Table 2‐3.
Table 2‐3: Supplier Identification
Type of Supplier
Supplier is a wholesaler
Supplier is a retailer
Fiscal or Calendar Year
UWMP Tables Are in Calendar Years
UWMP Tables Are in Fiscal Years
If using fiscal years provide month and date that the fiscal year begins (mm/dd)
Units of Measure Used in UWMP
Unit MG
2.5.2 Reporting Complete 2020 Data
This 2020 UWMP includes water use and planning data for the entire calendar year of 2020.
2.5.3 Units of Measure
Water volumes presented in this 2020 UWMP are measured in million gallons (MG) as identified in Table 2‐3.
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | 2‐4
2.6 Coordination and Outreach
2.6.1 Wholesale and Retail Coordination
Law
CWC 10631
(j) An urban water supplier that relies upon a wholesale agency for a source of water shall provide the wholesale agency with water use projections from that agency for that source of water in five‐year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available. The wholesale agency shall provide information to the urban water supplier for inclusion in the urban water supplier’s plan that identifies and quantifies, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water asrequired by subdivision (b), available from the wholesale agency to the urban water supplier over the same five‐year increments, and during various water‐year typesin accordance with subdivision (c). An urban watersupplier may rely upon watersupply information provided by the wholesale agency in fulfilling the plan informational requirements of subdivisions (b) and (c).
When a water supplier relies upon a wholesale agency for a water supply, both suppliers are required to provide each other with information regarding projected water supply and demand. The projections should be consistent with each agency’s supply and demand projections. The City does not receive water from any wholesale agency. Table 2‐4 is included below indicating that the information requested does not apply to the City.
Table 2‐4 Retail: Water Supplier Information Exchange
The retail supplier has informed the following wholesale supplier(s) of projected water use in accordance with CWC 10631.
Wholesale Water Supplier Name
NA
2.6.2 Coordination with Other Agencies and the Community Law
CWC 10620
(d)(3) Each urban water supplier shall coordinate the preparation of its plan with other appropriate agencies in the area, including other water suppliers that share a common source, water management agencies, and relevant public agencies, to the extent practicable.
CWC 10642
Each urban water supplier shall encourage the active involvement of diverse social, cultural, and economic elements of the population within the service area prior to and during the preparation of the plan.
The City coordinated with multiple neighboring and stakeholder agencies in the preparation of this UWMP. The coordination efforts were conducted to: 1) inform the agencies of the activities of the City; 2) gather high quality data for use in developing this UWMP; and 3) coordinate planning activities with other related regional plans and initiatives.
The coordination activities conducted by the City in preparation of this plan are summarized in Table 2‐5.
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | 2‐5
Table 2‐5 Agency Coordination
Agency
Sent a notice of public
hearing for draft UWMP
Commented on the
Draft
Attended public
meetings
Contacted for
assistance
Sent a copy of the draft
plan
Sent a notice of
intention to adopt
Notice of Plan
Availability
County of Fresno X
Kings River
Conservation District X
Upper Kings Water
Integrated Regional
Management
Authority
X
Alta Irrigation District X
Consolidated
Irrigation District X
General Public X
2.6.3 Notice to Cities and Counties
Law
CWC 10621 (b)
Every urban water supplier required to prepare a plan pursuant to this part shall, at least 60 days before the public hearing on the plan required by Section 10642, notify any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan.
The City has notified Fresno County of the public hearing and this notification has been reported in Chapter 10 Table 10‐1. A copy of the notification is included in Appendix K of this UWMP.
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | 3‐1
CHAPTER 3 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
New Requirements for 2020 Update
Per the Water Code the following new requirements are necessary for this chapter of the UWMP 2020 update. Inclusion of service area socioeconomic information as part of the system description Coordination with land use agencies and a description of current and projected land uses within the service area
Law
CWC Section 10631
Describe the service area of the supplier, including current and projected population, climate, and other social, economic, and demographic factors affecting the supplier’s water management planning. The projected population estimates shall be based upon data from the state, regional, or local service agency population projections within the service area of the urban water supplier and shall be in five‐year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available. The description shall include the current and projected land uses within the existing or anticipated service area affecting the supplier’s water management planning. Urban water suppliers shall coordinate with local or regional land use authorities to determine the most appropriate land use information, including, where appropriate, land use information obtained from local or regional land use authorities, as developed pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code.
3.1 General Description
The City is located along the Kings River in Fresno County, lying just inland between the State’s coastal mountain range and the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The City is a public agency that provides water and sewer service to all residential, commercial, and industrial customers and for fire protection uses. Covering approximately 5.08 square miles, the City serves a current population of 25,873 through approximately 5,914 active service connections.
The City is the governing agency and the sole purveyor of water within the city limits. The City adopted the Reedley 2030 General Plan (General Plan) in February 2014. The General Plan assesses delineated land use areas referred to as the Sphere of Influence (SOl), which is larger than the proposed City limits. The SOl includes land over which the City does not have complete jurisdiction; however, the City has the option to annex land and develop it in the future. The SOI area encompasses approximately 11 square miles (7,050 acres). The SOI is recognized as the ultimate City growth boundary over the life of the City’s current General Plan. This 2020 Urban Water Management Plan assumes that the SOI describes the future water system service area.
The land uses in the 2030 General Plan include residential (suburban, low density, medium density, and high density), commercial (community, service, downtown, neighborhood, and office), industrial (light and heavy), public and recreational. Existing land uses are primarily residential and industrial. Single‐family residential represents 56.4 percent of overall land use and industrial 12.5 percent. Table 3‐3 provides the land use acreages for the most current estimate (2030 General Plan), and the projected land use acreages at build‐out of the City limits and build‐out of the primary and secondary SOIs.
3.2 Service Area Boundary Maps
The City’s location and service area is shown on Figure 3‐1 and Figure 3‐2.
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | 3‐4
3.3 Service Area Climate
Law
CWC Section 10631(a)
Describe the service area of the supplier, including climate.
CWC Section 10630
It isthe intention of the Legislature, in enacting this part, to permit levels of water management planning… while accounting for impacts of climate change.
The City has a semi‐arid climate. Summers are hot and dry with average monthly highs near 100˚F, and winters are mild and slightly wetter with average monthly lows near 35˚F. Rainfall during the summer is rare and very light. The evapotranspiration rate (ETo), which is an indicator of how much water is required to maintain healthy agriculture and landscaping, ranges from 1.38 and 9.53 inches per month and averages 5.0 inches per year, with the highest ETo occurring during the month of July. Table 3‐1 summarizes the temperature, monthly rainfall, and ETo averages for the service area.
Table 3‐1: Climate Conditions for Calendar Year 2020
Month
Monthly Average
ETo*
Monthly
Rainfall*
Monthly Average
Temperature*
Inches Inches Fahrenheit
Jan 1.38 0.57 57.2
Feb 2.95 0.04 67.2
Mar 3.45 2.97 65.7
Apr 4.92 1.61 73.6
May 7.98 0.39 85.7
Jun 8.93 0 93.3
Jul 9.53 0 99.3
Aug 8.08 0 99.6
Sep 5.03 0 91.6
Oct 3.99 0 84.2
Nov 2.22 0.37 67.0
Dec 1.47 0.99 59.9
NOTE: Source – DWR California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) Station 142 (Orange Cove)
3.4 Service Area Population and Demographics
3.4.1 Service Area Population
Law
CWC Section 10631(a)
Describe the service area of the supplier, including current and projected population …The projected population estimates shall be based upon data from the state, regional, or local service agency population projections within the service area of the urban water supplier and shall be in five‐year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available.
Growth in the City, mainly residential in nature, has averaged approximately 3 percent per year since 1945. The 1990s and early 2000s had a declining trend from 3.6 percent to 2.4 percent per year. In the past ten year, the City’s population growth rate has not changed as greatly compared to the early 2000s. The Department of Finance population data from 2019 to 2020 shows the City’s population changed by 0.2%. The following planning document included growth rate and proposed population estimates through 2030 for the City:
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | 3‐5
City of Reedley General Plan 2030 (February 2014)
o 2030 population of 47,369 with an annual average growth rate of 3% (2010 to 2030) Figure 3‐3 provides a summary of historical growth rates from the city’s service area over the last twenty years (based on values from the Department of Finance Data) with the following average growth rates:
5‐year growth rate of 0.34% (2015‐2020)
10‐year growth rate of 0.72% (2010‐2020)
20‐year growth rate of 1.13% (2000‐2020)
Figure 3‐3: 20‐year Population and Growth Rate Chart
The 2020 population estimate was based on the Department of Finance 2020 population data for the City. The City’s General Plan 2030 estimated population of 47,369 was used for the 2045 projection. Population for the years 2025 to 2040 were estimated by interpolation. Current and estimated population projectionsfor the City’sservice area through the year 2045 are provided in Table 3‐2.
Table 3‐2 Retail: Population ‐ Current and Projected
Population
Served
20201 20252 20302 2035 2040 2045
25,873 30,172 34,471 38,771 43,070 47,369
NOTES:
1. Department of Finance Data Table E‐1.
2. Population estimate assuming the City’s General Plan population estimate for 2030.
2.56 1.07 1.18
1.63 3.36
3.35 6.43
3.20 0.39
2.10 ‐6.65
0.68 1.19
0.11 2.03
‐0.20
0.27 1.18
0.29 0.17
‐8.00
‐6.00
‐4.00
‐2.00
0.00 2.00
4.00 6.00
8.00 0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020 Time (Year)
Growth Rate (%)
Population Growth
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | 3‐6
3.4.2 Other Social, Economic, and Demographic Factors
Law
CWC Section 10631
Describe the service area of the supplier, including… othersocial, economic and demographic factors affecting the supplier’s water management planning.
The City is located approximately 25 miles southeast of the City of Fresno and equidistant from the City of Visalia. The majority of the City’s water connections are residential and commercial. Agriculture is a major industry in the City, which also accounts for a significant portion of water consumption. In the City’s 2030 General Plan, the agriculture land use designation was included in open space.
The following information was obtained from the 2020 US Census Bureau to describe the demographics of the City:
The population includes 51.4% male and 48.6% female with 22.7% of the population under the age of 18 Approximately 60.7% of the population is Hispanic or Latino The median household income was identified to be $64,126
3.5 Land Uses within Service Area
Law
CWC Section 10631(a)
The description shall include the current and projected land uses within the existing or anticipated service area affecting the supplier’s water management planning. Urban water suppliers shall coordinate with local or regional land use authorities to determine the most appropriate land use information, including, where appropriate, land use information obtained from local or regional land use authorities…
Figure 3‐4 shows the planned future land uses including the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI), as described in the General Plan 2030. As described in the City’s 2014 Integrated Master Plan, an interim planning period, Phase 1, was developed to reflect the near‐term development projects that were anticipated to occur between 2014 and 2020.
Phase 2 corresponds to build out of the City’s General Plan at 2030. As development occurs in the future, the City limits and water infrastructure will expand to serve new development beyond the current limits.
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | 3‐8
Table 3‐3 provides a summary of the planned land uses, as proposed in the General Plan 2030. These planned future land uses and acreages are used to project expected future needs for water supply.
Table 3‐3: Existing and Projected Land Use
General Plan Land Use 2014 Existing Land
Area (Acres)1
Projected 2020
Land Area (Acres)1
Projected 2030 Land
Area (Acres)1
Residential
Suburban Residential 7 10 276
Low Density Residential 959 1,181 4,075
Medium Density Residential 27 35 111
High Density Residential 156 202 251
Commercial and Industrial
Central Downtown 40 40 40
Community Commercial 92 111 434
Neighborhood Commercial 11 23 44
Service Commercial 75 78 140
Office 16 17 17
Light Industrial 142 225 809
Heavy Industrial 54 54 179
Other
Public/Institutional Facility 408 511 752
Open Space 96 188 636
Community Buffer ‐ ‐ 112
Total (Acres) 2,083 2,675 7,876
NOTES: Data from City of Reedley Integrated Master Plan (2014) As shown in Table 3‐3, the City anticipates the addition of approximately 600 acres in Phase 1. The projected 2030 land area presented in Table 3‐3 is based on the General Plan 2030. However, as described in the City's 2014 Integrated Master Plan, the City conducted an environmental review as part of the General Plan 2030 that considered three future development alternatives. As described in the City’s program EIR for the General Plan 2030, Alternative 3 was selected as the environmentally superior alternative. Alternative 3 included fewer acres in the future SOI. At 7,057 acres, Alternative 3 has approximately 820 fewer acres of future development compared to the 7,876 presented in Table 3‐
3. THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | 4‐1
CHAPTER 4 WATER USE CHARACTERIZATION
New Requirements for 2020 Update
Per Water Code, the following new requirements are necessary for this chapter of the UWMP 2020 update. Suppliers shall coordinate with local or regional land use authorities to determine the most appropriate land uses information for projecting water use in five‐year increments, up to the year 2045. Suppliers shall provide a simple lay description of their projected water use for the foreseeable future. If available, water use projections must display and account for the water savings estimated to result from adopted codes, standards, ordinances, or transportation and land use plans identified. [Water Code Section 10631(d)(4)(A)]
Suppliers shall provide quantified distribution system losses for each of the five preceding years and whether or not the state standard was met.
Both Wholesale and Retail Suppliers shall include a DRA for a drought period that lasts five consecutive water years, starting from the year following the assessment, which would be 2021 for this round of UWMPs (see Chapter 7). The DRA requires a comparison of water supplies with total projected water use.
Therefore, the Supplier must produce a projected water use for the years 2021 through 2025 as part of the water use projections, up to the year 2040.
Both Wholesale and Retail Suppliers will have to conduct an annual water supply and demand assessment on or before July 1 of each year, starting in 2022. The annual assessment will include current year unconstrained demand. Suppliers are encouraged to consider unconstrained demand as the expected water use in the upcoming year, based on recent water use, and before any projected response actions a Supplier may trigger under its Water Shortage Contingency Plan (see Chapter 8).
4.1 Non‐Potable Versus Potable Water Use
The City’s water supply is exclusively groundwater. The City currently does not use recycled water to meet water demands.
4.2 Past, Current, and Projected Water Use by Sector
Law
CWC 10635
(a) Every urban water Supplier shall include, as part of its urban water management plan, an assessment of the reliability of its water service to its customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry water years. This water supply and demand assessment shall compare the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the long‐term total projected water use over the next 20 years, in five‐year increments, for a normal water year, a single dry water year, and a drought lasting five consecutive water years. The water service reliability assessment shall be based upon the information compiled pursuant to Section 10631, including available data from state, regional, or local agency population projections within the service area of the urban water supplier.
CWC 10631 (d)
(1) For an urban retail water supplier, quantify, to the extent records are available, past and current water use, over the same five‐year increments described in subdivision (a), and projected water use, based upon information developed pursuant to subdivision (a), identifying the uses among water use sectors, including, but not necessarily limited to, all of the following…
(2). The water use projections shall be in the same five‐year increments described in subdivision (a).
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | 4‐2
(4)(A) Water use projections, where available, shall display and account for the water savings estimated to result from adopted codes, standards, ordinances, or transportation and land use plans identified by the urban water supplier, as applicable to the service area.
(B) To the extent that an urban water supplier reports the information described in subparagraph (A), an urban water supplier shall do both of the following: (i) Provide citations of the various codes, standards, ordinances, or transportation and land use plans utilized in making the projections. (ii) Indicate the extent that the water use projections consider savings from codes, standards, ordinances, or transportation and land use plans. Water use projections that do not account for these water savings shall be noted of that fact.
In this section current and projected water usage is addressed. Table 4‐3 displays water use in five‐year increments from 2025 till 2045.
4.2.1 Water Use Sectors Listed in Water Code
CWC 10631(d)
(1) For an urban retail water supplier, quantify, to the extent records are available, past and current water use, over the same five‐year increments described in subdivision (a), and projected water use, based upon information developed pursuant to subdivision (a), identifying the uses among water use sectors, including, but not necessarily limited to, all of the following uses:
(A) Single‐family residential.
(B) Multifamily.
(C) Commercial.
(D) Industrial.
(E) Institutional and governmental.
(F) Landscape.
(G) Sales to other agencies.
(H) Saline water intrusion barriers, groundwater recharge, or conjunctive use, or any combination thereof. (I) Agricultural
(J) Distribution system water loss
The City’s service area includes the following water demand sectors listed in the California Water Code:
Single Family: Single family detached dwellings
Multi‐Family: Apartments, condominiums, town houses, duplexes and trailer parks Commercial: Retail establishments, office buildings, laundries, schools, prisons, hospitals, dormitories, nursing homes, hotels, churches, campgrounds
Industrial: All manufacturing
Institutional and governmental: Tracked under Commercial customer class Landscape: Parks, play fields, cemeteries, median strips, golf courses Distribution system water loss
The following sectors are not applicable to the City’s UWMP:
Sales to other agencies
Saline water intrusion barriers, groundwater recharge, or conjunctive use Agricultural
4.2.2 Water Use Sectors in Addition to Those Listed in Water Code To provide clarity, acknowledgment of these additional sectors is being addressed. However, the following sectors are not applicable to the City’s UWMP:
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | 4‐3
Exchanges
Surface Water Augmentation
Transfers
Wetlands or Wildlife Habitat
4.2.3 Past Water Use
Table 4‐0 provides historical water usage by customer type from 2015 through 2019.
Table 4‐0: Historical Water Usage
Use Type Water Use (MG) % of Total 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Single Family 497 466 525 527 518 35
Multi‐Family 118 108 109 108 110 8
Commercial 137 185 184 207 201 13
Industrial 70 120 30 34 48 4
Landscape 109 34 63 77 67 5
Losses 367 454 492 581 564 34
Total (MG) 1,298 1,367 1,403 1,534 1,509 100
NOTES: Values represent metered use as reported to DWR for 2020. Percentage total based on average of the last 5 years.
4.2.4 Distribution System Water Loss
Law
CWC 10631(d)(1)
For an urban retail water supplier, quantify, to the extent records are available, past and current water use, over the same five‐year increments described in subdivision (a), and projected water use, based upon information developed pursuant to subdivision (a), identifying the uses among water use sectors, including, but not necessarily limited to, all of the following… (J) Distribution system water loss….
CWC 10631(d)(3)
(A) The distribution system water loss shall be quantified for each of the five years preceding the plan update, in accordance with rules adopted pursuant to Section 10608.34
(B) The distribution system water loss quantification shall be reported in accordance with a worksheet approved or developed by the department through a public process. The water loss quantification worksheetshall be based on the water system balance methodology developed by the American Water Works Association. (C) In the plan due July 1, 2021, and in each update thereafter, data shall be included to show whether the urban retail water supplier met the distribution loss standards enacted by the board pursuant to Section 10608.34.
Table 4‐2 includes projected water losses, reported in five‐year increments for the next 20 years. Section 4.2.6 contains Table 4‐4 which identities distribution system water losses for each of the five years preceding the plan update.
4.2.5 Current Water Use
Table 4‐1 provides an overview of the existing water demands by use type within the City’s service area for calendar year 2020.
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | 4‐4
Table 4‐1 Retail: Demands for Potable and Raw Water ‐ Actual Use Type 2020 Actual
May select each use
multiple times. These are
the only Use Types that will
be recognized by the
WUEdata online submittal
tool
Level of Treatment
When Delivered Volume (MG)
Single Family Drinking Water 578
Multi‐Family Drinking Water 116
Commercial Drinking Water 186
Industrial Drinking Water 46
Landscape Drinking Water 79
Losses Drinking Water 634
Total (MG) 1,639
NOTES: Values represent metered use as reported to DWR for 2020.
4.2.6 Projected Water Use
Law
CWC 10635
(a) Every urban water Supplier shall include, as part of its urban water management plan, an assessment of the reliability of its water service to its customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry water years. This water supply and demand assessment shall compare the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the long‐term total projected water use over the next 20 years, in five‐year increments, for a normal water year, a single dry water year, and a drought lasting five consecutive water years. The water service reliability assessment shall be based upon the information compiled pursuant to Section 10631, including available data from state, regional, or local agency population projections within the service area of the urban water supplier.
CWC 10631 (h)
An urban water supplier that relies upon a wholesale agency for a source of water shall provide the wholesale agency with water use projections from that agency for that source of water in five‐year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available. The wholesale agency shall provide information to the urban water supplier for inclusion in the urban water supplier’s plan that identifies and quantifies, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water asrequired by subdivision (b), available from the wholesale agency to the urban water supplier over the same five‐year increments, and during various water‐year typesin accordance with subdivision (f). An urban watersupplier may rely upon watersupply information provided by the wholesale agency in fulfilling the plan informational requirements of subdivisions (b) and (f).
CWC 10631 (d)(4)
(A) Water use projections, where available,shall display and account forthe watersavings estimated to result from adopted codes, standards, ordinances, or transportation and land use plans identified by the urban water supplier, as applicable to the service area.
(B) To the extent that an urban water supplier reports the information described in subparagraph (A), an urban water supplier shall do both of the following:
(i) Provide citations of the various codes, standards, ordinances, or transportation and land use plans utilized in making the projections.
(ii) Indicate the extent that the water use projections consider savings from codes,standards, ordinances, or transportation and land use plans. Water use projections that do not account for these water savings shall be noted of that fact.
Table 4‐1a provides a summary of historical Gallons per Capita per Day (GPCD) within the service area and years of mandatory conservation with requested conservation level (percent reduction).
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | 4‐5
Table 4‐1a: Historical Use Rates (GPCD)
Year Service Area
Population
Water
Production
(MG)
Gross Water
Use (gpcd)
Meter
Residential
Use (MG)
Residential
Water Use
(gpcd)
Mandatory
Conservation
2010 24,139 1,539 175 836 92 10%
2011 24,194 1,450 164 983 111 10%
2012 24,649 1,640 182 1,026 114 10%
2013 24,943 1,600 176 650 71 10%
2014 24,970 1,500 165 675 74 10%
2015 25,477 1,302 140 615 66 20%
2016 25,427 1,366 147 574 62 20%
2017 25,496 1,403 151 634 68 20%
2018 25,797 1,534 163 635 67 10%
2019 25,873 1,509 160 628 66 10%
2020 25,917 1,639 173 694 73 10%
5‐Year Average 156
10‐Year Average 163
NOTES: Potable Demand based on historical production values provided by the City. 5‐year average includes 2015‐ 2020 and 10‐year average includes 2010‐2020.
4.2.6.1 20‐Year Planning Horizon
Annual water demands were assumed to increase proportionally to populations projected in Section 3.4. Future water demand projections are based on population projections multiplied by the 10‐year average GPCD of 163 and aggregated for each use type per the customer type percentages in Table 4‐0. The following equation was used to determine demand projections:
𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑠 ൌ 𝑃𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑥 163 𝐺𝑃𝐶𝐷 𝑥 𝑈𝑠𝑒 𝑇𝑦𝑝𝑒 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒
Table 4‐2 summarizes projected demands from 2025 to 2045.
Table 4‐2 Retail: Demands for Potable and Non‐Potable Water ‐ Projected Use Type Projected Water Use (MG)
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Single Family 628 718 807 897 986
Multi‐Family 144 164 185 205 225
Commercial 233 267 300 333 366
Industrial 90 103 115 128 141
Landscape 72 82 92 102 113
Losses 628 718 807 897 986
TOTAL (MG) 1,795 2,052 2,306 2,562 2,817
NOTES: Future demands based on future population projections and 10‐year average GPCD.
Table 4‐3 summarizes projected water demands through 2045 including potable water only.
Table 4‐3 Retail: Total Water Demands
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Potable and Raw Water (MG) 1,639 1,795 2,052 2,306 2,562 2,817 Total (MG) 1,639 1,795 2,052 2,306 2,562 2,817
NOTES Future demands based on future population projections and 10‐year average GPCD..
Table 4‐4 summarizes the distribution system water losses for each of the five years preceding the plan update.
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | 4‐6
Table 4‐4 Retail: 12 Month Water Loss Audit Reporting
Reporting Period Start Date Volume of Water Loss (MG) 1/2015 366
1/2016 265
1/2017 431
1/2018 515
1/2019 509
NOTES: Water loss based on AWWA worksheet values.
4.2.6.2 Water Year Types
Water year typesincluding a normal, single dry year and multiple dry yearsfor the City’sservice area have been identify and reported in Submittal Table 7‐1.
4.2.7 Characteristic Five‐Year Water Use
Law
CWC 10635(b)
Every urban water supplier shall include, as part of its urban water management plan, a drought risk assessment for its water service to its customers as part of information considered in developing the demand management measures and water supply projects and programs to be included in the urban water management plan. The urban water supplier may conduct an interim update or updates to this drought risk assessment within the five‐year cycle of its urban water management plan update. The drought risk assessment shall include each of the following… (3) A comparison of the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the total projected water use for the drought period. [Emphasis added]
(4) Considerations of the historical drought hydrology, plausible changes on projected supplies and demands under climate change conditions, anticipated regulatory changes, and other locally applicable criteria.
In accordance with Assembly Bill 11X, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2015‐002, which established a Water Conservation Program. Title 8, Chapter 1, Article 12 (8‐1‐12) of the City’s Municipal Code established mandatory prohibitions related to water conservation. The City adopted this Ordinance in response to water supply conditions associated to drought conditions and to comply with State Emergency Water Conservation Regulations. The permanent water use prohibitions described are required reduction measures associated with the City’s 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) mandated shortage levels 1 and 2 (requiring up to 20% of supply reduction). Additionally, Section 7.2 contains the drought risk assessment for this update. Table 4‐4a provides a summary of the characteristic five‐year use with and without the normal Level 1 and 2 conservation actions.
Table 4‐4a: Characteristic Five‐Year Water Use
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Unconstrained Potable and Raw
Water (MG) with conservation 1,670 1,701 1,733 1,764 1,795 Unconstrained Potable and Raw
Water (MG) without conservation 1,837 1,871 1,906 1,940 1,975 NOTES: Future demands based on future population projections and 10‐year average GPCD.
4.3 Worksheets and Reporting Tables
All required worksheets and reporting tables have been provided throughout this Chapter.
4.4 Water Use for Lower Income Households
Law
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | 4‐7
CWC 10631.1
(a) The water use projections required by Section 10631 shall include projected water use for single‐family and multifamily residential housing needed for lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, as identified in the housing element of any city, county, or city and county in the service area of the supplier.
California Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5 (a)
“Lower income households” means persons and families whose income does not exceed the qualifying limits for lower income families… In the event the federalstandards are discontinued, the departmentshall, by regulation, establish income limits for lower income households for all geographic areas of the state at 80 percent of area median income, adjusted for family size and revised annually.
The Fresno Council of Governments (COG) 2016 Multi‐Jurisdictional Housing Element estimates that a total of 41,470 housing units will be needed in the County through the end of year 2023. The City’s share of those units is 1,311 or approximately 3.2 percent. The 2016 Multi‐Jurisdictional Housing Element also estimates that approximately 45.6 percent of the total housing needs in the City are for low‐income households. The needs allocation is further classified aslow income, very low income and extremely low income. The extremely low‐income familiesrequire rental assistance and these units are assumed to be multi‐family residential (MFR) units. The low income and very low income are assumed to be single‐family residential (SFR) units. The projected water demands for lower income housing are included in the projections of water demands shown in Tables 4‐3 and 4‐4. Demand for existing lower income housing is being met and is included in the volumes shown in Tables 4‐3 and 4‐4. A summary of these projections is shown in Table 4‐5.
Table 4‐5 Retail Only: Inclusion in Water Use Projections Are Future Water Savings Included in Projections? No
If "Yes" to above, state the section/page where citations of the codes, are found. ‐ Are Lower Income Residential Demands Included In Projections? Yes
4.5 Climate Change Considerations
DWR Guidelines recommend that the 2015 UWMP include a discussion of potential climate change impacts on projected demand. The City is part of the Upper Kings Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. Appendix A contains the climate change assessment found in Chapter 17 of the Upper Kings IRWM Regional Water Management Plan. There is mounting scientific evidence that global climate conditions are changing and will continue to change as a result of the continued build‐up of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the Earth’s atmosphere. Changes in climate can affect municipal water supplies through modifications in the timing, amount, and form of precipitation, as well as water demands and the quality of surface runoff. These changes can affect all elements of water supply systems, from watersheds to reservoirs, conveyance systems, and treatment plants.
Indications of climate change have been observed over the last several decades throughout California. Although the State’s weather has followed the expected pattern of a largely Mediterranean climate throughout the past century, no consistent trend in the overall amount of precipitation has been detected, except that a larger proportion of total precipitation is falling as rain instead of snow.
The correlation between temperature and water demand is well documented and understood. A large percentage of the City’s water demand is driven by outdoor irrigation. Higher temperatures will increase evapotranspiration rates and increase demands. Higher temperatures will also extend the duration of the outdoor landscaping growing season increasing the maximum day demands on the spring and fall seasons. It is evident that climate change adds new uncertainties to the challenges of planning. Changes in weather could significantly affect water supply planning. Since climatic pressures could potentially affect supply reliability, continual attention to this issue will be necessary in the future. A copy of the Kings Subbasin Water Authority IRWMP Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment is included in Appendix A.
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | 5‐1
CHAPTER 5 SB X7‐7 BASELINE, TARGETS, AND 2020 COMPLIANCE With the adoption of the Water Conservation Act of 2009, also known as the SB X7‐7, the State is required to set a goal of reducing urban water use by 20 percent by the year 2020. Each retail urban water supplier must determine baseline water use during their baseline period and also target water use for the years 2020 and 2025 in order to help the State achieve the 20 percent reduction. Per the Water Code there are no new requirements for this chapter of the UWMP 2020 update.
New Requirements for 2020 Update
Per the Water Code there are no new requirements for this chapter of the UWMP 2020 update.
5.1 Guidance for Wholesale Suppliers
Law
CWC 10608.12. (w)
“Urban wholesale water supplier,” means a water supplier, either publicly or privately owned, that provides more than 3,000 acre‐feet of water annually at wholesale for potable municipal purposes.
The City is a retail water supplier and this section does not apply.
5.2 SB X7‐7 Forms and Summary Tables
Law
CWC 10608.20
(g) An urban retail water supplier may update its 2020 urban water use target in its 2015 urban water management plan required pursuant to Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 10610).
5.2.1 SBX7‐7 Verification Form (Baselines and Targets)
The City’s SB X7‐7 Verification Form submitted for the 2015 UMWP has been included as a reference document in the 2020 UWMP as Appendix B.
5.2.2 SB X7‐7 Compliance Form
The City has completed the 2020 SB X7‐7 Compliance Form and included as Appendix C.
5.2.3 Submittal Tables 5‐1 and 5‐2
Submittal Table 5‐1 and Table 5‐2 from the 2020 SB X7‐7 Compliance are included in Section 5.5.
5.2.4 Regional UWMP/Regional Alliance
The City has developed an UWMP that reportssolely on itsservice area and will not be participating in a regional UWMP update.
5.3 Baseline and Target Calculations for 2020 UWMPs
General requirements for determining the baseline period, Baseline GPCD, Target Confirmation, and 2020 Target can be found in Appendix C. Suppliers that have submitted a 2015 UWMP with the SB X7‐7 Verification Form and have not had a change to their service area will not need to recalculate their baselines and targets in their 2020 UWMPs.
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | 5‐2
5.3.1 Supplier Submitted 2015 UMWP, No Change to Service Area The City submitted a 2015 UWMP and has had no change to the service area since the submittal of the plan.
5.3.2 Supplier Did Not Submit 2015 UWMP
The City submitted a 2015 UWMP, therefore, this topic does not apply to the City.
5.3.3 Supplier Newly Subject to UWMP Requirements
This topic does not apply to the City.
5.3.4 Distribution Area Expansion
The City did not expand its area in the last 5 years, therefore, this topic does not apply to the City.
5.3.5 Distribution Area Contraction
The City did not contract its area in the last 5 years, therefore, this topic does not apply to the City.
5.3.6 Large Partial Customers Become Whole Customers
The City has never had large partial customers, therefore, this topic does not apply to the City.
5.4 Methods for Calculating Population and Gross Water Use
5.4.1 Service Area Population
Law
CWC 10608.20
(e) An urban retail water supplier shall include in its urban water management plan due in 2010…the baseline per capita water use…along with the bases for determining those estimates, including references to supporting data. (f) When calculating per capita values for the purposes of this chapter, an urban retail water supplier shall determine population using federal, state, and local population reports and projections.
CWC 10644
(a)(2) The plan…shall include any standardized forms, tables or displays specified by the department.
The Department of Finance 2020 population data was used for the City.
5.4.2 Gross Water Use
Law
CWC 10608.12
(g) “Gross Water Use” means the total volume of water, whether treated or untreated, entering the distribution system of an urban retail water supplier, excluding all of the following:
(1) Recycled water that is delivered within the service area of an urban retail water supplier or its urban wholesale water supplier
(2) The net volume of water that the urban retail water supplier places into long term storage (3) The volume of water the urban retail water supplier conveys for use by another urban water supplier (4) The volume of water delivered for agricultural use, except as otherwise provided in subdivision (f) of Section 10608.24.
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | 5‐3
California Code of Regulations Title 23 Division 2 Chapter 5.1 Article Section 596 (a) An urban retail water supplier that has a substantial percentage of industrial water use in its service area is eligible to exclude the process water use of existing industrial water customers from the calculation of its gross water use to avoid a disproportionate burden on another customer sector.
Historical gross water use for this UWMP was obtained from the City’s records for years 2010‐2020.
5.5 2020 Compliance Daily Per‐Capita Water Use (GPCD)
Law
CWC 10608.12
(f) “Compliance daily per‐capita water use” means the gross water use during the final year of the reporting period…
CWC 10608.20
(e) An urban retail water supplier shall include in its urban water management plan due in 2010 . . . compliance daily per capita water use, along with the bases for determining those estimates, including references to supporting data.
The baseline daily per capita water use for the City for this UWMP update is shown in Table 5‐1.
Table 5‐1 Baselines and Targets Summary
Baseline
Period Start Year End Year
Average
Baseline
GPCD*
2015 Interim
Target *
Confirmed
2020 Target*
10‐15 year 1999 2008 269 242 215 5 Year 2003 2007 305
*All values are in Gallons per Capita per Day (GPCD)
The City has not applied any adjustments to the 2020 gross water use for this UWMP update. Table 5‐2 shows the City achieved targeted 2020 reduction.
Table 5‐2: 2020 Compliance
2020 GPCD
2020 Confirmed Target
GPCD
Did Supplier Achieve
Targeted Reduction
for 2020? Y/N
Actual
2020 GPCD
2020 TOTAL
Adjustments
Adjusted 2020
GPCD
173 0 0 215 Y
*All values are in Gallons per Capita per Day (GPCD)
5.5.1 2020 Adjustments for Factors Outside of Supplier’s Control Law
CWC 10608.24
(d)(1) When determining compliance daily per capita water use, an urban retail water supplier may consider the following factors:
(A) Differences in evapotranspiration and rainfall in the baseline period compared to the compliance reporting period. (B) Substantial changes to commercial or industrial water use resulting from increased business output and economic development that have occurred during the reporting period. (C) Substantial changes to institutional water use resulting from fire suppression services or other extraordinary events, or from new or expanded operations, that have occurred during the reporting period.
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | 5‐4
(2) If the urban retail water supplier elects to adjust its estimate of compliance daily per capita water use due to one or more of the factors described in paragraph (1), it shall provide the basis for, and data supporting, the adjustment in the report required by Section 10608.40.
Methodologies for Calculating Baseline and Compliance Urban Per Capita Water Use, Methodology 4 This section discusses adjustments to compliance‐year GPCD because of changes in distribution area caused by mergers, annexation, and other scenarios that occur between the baseline and compliance years.
The City has not included any adjustments (including Extraordinary Institutional Water Use, Economic Adjustment (CII), or Weather Normalization) for their 2020 GPCD compliance.
5.5.2 Special Situations
The City does not have any special situations that require them to recalculate their baselines and 2020 Target in the 2020 UWMP.
5.5.3 If Supplier Does Not Meet 2020 Target
As shown in Table 5‐2, the City has met the 2020 GPCD compliance target.
5.6 Regional Alliance
The City has developed an UWMP that reportssolely on itsservice area and will not be participating in a regional UWMP update and SB X7‐7 compliance will be for the City’s service area only.
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | 6‐1
CHAPTER 6 WATER SUPPLY CHARACTERIZATION
New Requirements for 2020 Update
Per Water Code, the following new requirements are necessary for this chapter of the UWMP 2020 update. The new requirements for a water supply analysis are largely in the application of that analysis to the new DRA, WSCP, and consideration of climate change in future projections. The conclusions drawn from the water supply characterization integrate into a specific understanding of a Supplier’s new drought risk in the DRA and inform the management and mitigation actions a Supplier must address in the newly required WSCP, along with consideration of climate change and coordination with land use and planning authorities for future projections. For example, an analysis that concludes that a water supply portfolio is reliable under all conditions conceivable may have fewer supply augmentation actions or demand management actions in a WSCP.
Water supply analysis conclusions translate into a realistic DRA and implementable actions listed in the WSCP in the event of water shortage conditions.
6.1 Water Supply Analysis Overview
Law
CWC 10631 (b)
Identify and quantify, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water available to the supplier [in five‐ year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available]1 providing supporting and related information, including all of the following:
(1) A detailed discussion of anticipated supply availability under a normal water year,single dry year, and droughts lasting at least five years, as well as more frequent and severe periods of drought, as described in the drought risk assessment.
For each source of water supply, consider any information pertinent to the reliability analysis conducted pursuant to Section 10635, including changes in supply due to climate change. (2) When multiple sources of water supply are identified, a description of the management of each supply in correlation with the other identified supplies.
CWC 10631 (h)
An urban water supplier that relies upon a wholesale agency for a source of water shall provide the wholesale agency with water use projections from that agency for that source of water in five‐year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available. The wholesale agency shall provide information to the urban water supplier for inclusion in the urban water supplier’s plan that identifies and quantifies, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water asrequired by subdivision (b), available from the wholesale agency to the urban water supplier over the same five‐year increments, and during various water‐year typesin accordance with subdivision (f). An urban watersupplier may rely upon watersupply information provided by the wholesale agency in fulfilling the plan informational requirements of subdivisions (b) and (f).
6.2 Water Supply Characterization
6.2.1 Purchased or Imported Water
The City does not purchase water from any other urban water suppliers or other entities.
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | 6‐2
6.2.2 Groundwater
Law
CWC 10631 (b)(4)
If groundwater is identified as an existing or planned source of water available to the supplier, all of the following information shall be included in the plan:
(A) The current version of any groundwater sustainability plan or alternative adopted pursuant to Part 2.74 (commencing with Section 10720), any groundwater management plan adopted by the urban water supplier, including plans adopted pursuant to Part 2.75 (commencing with Section 10750), or any other specific authorization for groundwater management for basins underlying the urban water supplier’s service area. (B) A description of any groundwater basin or basins from which the urban water supplier pumps groundwater. For basins that a court or the board has adjudicated the rights to pump groundwater, a copy of the order or decree adopted by the court or the board and a description of the amount of groundwater the urban water supplier has the legal right to pump under the order or decree. For a basin that has not been adjudicated, information as to whether the department has identified the basin as a high‐ or medium‐priority basin in the most current official departmental bulletin that characterizes the condition of the groundwater basin, and a detailed description of the efforts being undertaken by the urban water supplier to coordinate with groundwatersustainability agencies or groundwater management agencieslisted in subdivision (c) of Section 10723 to maintain or achieve sustainable groundwater conditions in accordance with a groundwater sustainability plan or alternative adopted pursuant to Part 2.74 (commencing with Section 10720). (C) A detailed description and analysis of the location, amount, and sufficiency of groundwater pumped by the urban water supplier for the past five years. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records.
(D) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater that is projected to be pumped by the urban water supplier. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records.
The City obtains its entire water supply from the Kings Subbasin (Figure 6‐1). There are seven active domestic water supply wells that provide potable water to City customers. One of the seven wells currently acts as a standby. Each well pumps water directly into the water system which includes approximately 82 miles of pipeline and three elevated storage tanks.
The City added Well No. 14 to the water system in April of 2014. The existing well capacities range from 750 to 2,500 gallons per minute (gpm), with a total combined capacity of approximately 11,250 gpm. With the largest well out of service, Well No. 14, the combined capacity of the system is approximately 8,750 gpm.
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | 6‐4
6.2.2.1 Basin Description
The City is located in the San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region (groundwater basin) and extracts groundwater from the Kings Subbasin. DWR Bulletin 118 – Update 2003, “California’s Groundwater” contains a detailed description of the Kings Subbasin and its characteristics and conditions. A copy of this description is included in Appendix D.
As part of the San Joaquin Hydrogeological Basin, the Kings Subbasin straddles portions of both the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys in Fresno, Kings, and Tulare County. The subbasin occupies approximately 976,000 acres, and is bordered to the north by the San Joaquin River. The subbasin is bordered on the south by the southern fork of the Kings River and the northern boundaries of the Empire West Side Irrigation District and Kings County Water District, southern boundaries of Laguna, Consolidated, and Alta Irrigation Districts, and western boundary of Stone Corral Irrigation District. The eastern boundary of the subbasin is the alluvium‐granite rock of the Sierra Nevada. The western boundary is the eastern boundaries of the Delta‐Mendota and Westside Subbasins.
The subbasin is primarily comprised of marine deposits from periodic inundation of the Pacific Ocean and continental deposits from erosion of surrounding mountains. The principal aquifers consist of unconsolidated continental deposits (older deposits from the Tertiary and Quaternary age overlain with younger deposits from the Quaternary age), and coarse oxidized deposits of the alluvium. Quaternary deposits consist of older alluvium, lacustrine and marsh deposits, younger alluvium, flood‐basin deposits, and sand dunes. The older alluvium is the most important aquifer in the subbasin and yields from these wells can reach above 3,000 gpm. The flood‐basin, lacustrine, and marsh deposits located in the western part of the sub‐basin consist of silt and clay that restrict vertical movement of water and do not produce appreciable wells. In the Reedley area, the soils are typically coarse sands with high percolation rates and specific yields, but areas of clay soils exist in some areas.
Groundwater recharge comes from river, stream, and canal seepage, percolation of irrigation water, and intentional recharge. For the most part, the groundwater table in the Reedley area is dependent on snow melt and runoff in canals and ditches of the Alta Irrigation District as well as recharge from the Kings River. Snow pack in the Sierra Nevada to the east is variable and total water supply to the area is subject to wide fluctuations in volume. Groundwater pumping is inversely proportional to the surface water supply available in the region, and in years when there is limited surface water available for irrigation, the groundwater levels experience a decline.
In general, groundwater flow isto the southwest based on contours mapped by DWR in recent years, including the area of the City and vicinity. The estimated storage in the subbasin is 93 million ac‐ft with a depth of 1,000 ft or less. Well depths range from 100 to 500 ft, with an average depth of 210 ft. Well yields range from 20,000‐30,000 gpm and average 500‐1,500 gpm for municipal and irrigation wells. Specific yield in the subbasin ranges from 0.2 percent to 36 percent, with an average specific yield estimated to be 11.3 percent.
6.2.2.2 Multiple Groundwater Basins
The City only extracts groundwater from the Kings Subbasin. Therefore, this section is not applicable to the City.
6.2.2.3 Other Considerations
The City relies 100% on local groundwater for its water supplies. The San Joaquin River Groundwater Basin is not adjudicated. The City is not restricted to a specific volume of groundwater from the Kings Subbasin, but groundwater must be beneficially used. The City is responsible for monitoring groundwater levels, quantities, and quality of its potable supply wells and makes all of the information available to the Community, agencies, and stakeholders, including the State of California.
The City is engaged in groundwater recharge projects and activities to reduce the consumptive use of groundwater. For example, the City currently rechargestreated wastewater effluent from the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) using percolation ponds on site. The City also maintains nine stormwater percolation basins that also provide groundwater recharge, although the volume has not been quantified. The percolated wastewater and stormwater are subsequently pumped as groundwater for local crop irrigation.
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | 6‐5
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), which became effective January 1, 2015, established a framework of priorities and requirements to help local agencies sustainably manage groundwater within a basin or subbasin (basin). The SGMA allows local agencies to form a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) through either a Joint Powers Authority (JPA), a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), or another legal agreement. In March 2016, the City entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with other local agencies to from the Kings River East GSA.
The primary purpose of the MOU isfacilitating a cooperative and ongoing working relationship among the agencies and to develop and implement mutually beneficial approaches and strategies for implementing the Act in the Kings subbasin. The MOU also desires to facilitate contracts with other agencies, both current and prospective, overlying the subbasin, in order to coordinate with the GSA to implement a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) and satisfy the requirements of the Act.
The Alta Irrigation District (AID) is currently addressing overdraft and declining groundwater supplies in the area by engaging in groundwater recharge and banking projects. AID uses surface water to recharge groundwater both directly (when excess surface water is available) and indirectly (via unlined canals). AID also has two groundwater banking projects located in the eastern part of the District, Harder Pond and Traver Pond, that provide surface water to mitigate groundwater quality issues (used for drinking water) in the area. AID has also entered into a groundwater banking project with the City of Dinuba (a few miles southeast of the City) to help with a localized overdraft problem.
The 2003 update to the DWR Bulletin 118 identifies groundwater overdraft as the condition of a groundwater basin or subbasin in which the amount of water withdrawn by pumping exceeds the amount of water that recharges the basin over a period of years, during which the water supply conditions approximate average conditions. Conditions of critical overdraft result in undesirable impacts which can include land subsidence, groundwater depletion, and/or chronic lowering of groundwater levels. All basins designated as high or medium priority and subject to critical conditions of overdraft are required to be managed under a groundwater sustainability plan or coordinated groundwater sustainability plans by January 31, 2020.
In Chapter 6 of Bulletin 118, the DWR identifies the Kings Subbasin as critically over drafted subbasins; the conditions were not reevaluated for the 2003 update to Bulletin 118. Overdraft conditions in the Kings subbasin were previously estimated by the Kings River Conservation District (KRCD) to be an average of 52,462 MG/yr from 1964‐2004, with approximately 3.2 million gallons of groundwater mined in the last 50 years or so. The KCRD models also project that overdraft conditions will average around 3,975 MG/yr through 2035.
As the City grows, further reliance on groundwater for the primary water supply could result in an overdraft of the subbasin. Further evaluation of the aquifer should be made to confirm long‐term yields.
6.2.2.4 Groundwater Volume Pumped in Last Five Years
Law
CWC 10631
(b) ...If groundwater is identified as an existing or planned source of water available to the supplier, all of the following information shall be included in the plan:
(3) A detailed description and analysis of the location, amount, and sufficiency of groundwater pumped by the urban water supplier for the past five years. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records.
The City is not restricted to a specific volume of groundwater from the Kings Subbasin. Table 6‐1 provides an overview of the groundwater sources and the annual quantity pumped to meet the demands of City’s customers from 2016 to 2020.
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | 6‐6
Table 6‐1 Retail: Groundwater Volume Pumped
Supplier does not pump groundwater.
The supplier will not complete the table below.
All or part of the groundwater described below is desalinated.
Groundwater Type Location or Basin Name 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Alluvial Basin Kings Subbasin 1,366 1,403 1,534 1,509 1,639 TOTAL (MG) 1,366 1,403 1,534 1,509 1,639
6.2.3 Surface Water
As previously stated, the City’s source of supply is groundwater from municipal wells. Currently, the City does not use self‐supplied surface water as part of its water supply.
6.2.4 Stormwater
The City does not capture or utilize stormwater for water supply.
6.2.5 Wastewater and Recycled Water
Law
CWC 10633
The plan shall provide, to the extent available, information on recycled water and its potential for use as a water source in the service area of the urban watersupplier. The preparation of the plan shall be coordinated with local water, wastewater, groundwater, and planning agencies that operate within the supplier’s service area, and shall include all of the following:
(a) A description of the wastewater collection and treatment systems in the supplier’s service area, including a quantification of the amount of wastewater collected and treated and the methods of wastewater disposal. (b) A description of the quantity of treated wastewater that meets recycled water standards, is being discharged, and is otherwise available for use in a recycled water project. (c) A description of the recycled water currently being used in the supplier’s service area, including, but not limited to, the type, place, and quantity of use.
(d) A description and quantification of the potential uses of recycled water, including, but not limited to, agricultural irrigation, landscape irrigation, wildlife habitat enhancement, wetlands, industrial reuse, groundwater recharge, indirect potable reuse, and other appropriate uses, and a determination with regard to the technical and economic feasibility of serving those uses.
(e) The projected use of recycled water within the supplier’s service area at the end of 5, 10, 15, and 20 years, and a description of the actual use of recycled water in comparison to uses previously projected pursuant to this subdivision. (f) A description of actions, including financial incentives, which may be taken to encourage the use of recycled water, and the projected results of these actions in terms of acre‐feet of recycled water used per year. (g) A plan for optimizing the use ofrecycled waterin the supplier’sservice area, including actionsto facilitate the installation of dual distribution systems, to promote recirculating uses, to facilitate the increased use of treated wastewater that meets recycled water standards, and to overcome any obstacles to achieving that increased use.
Previous studies, including most recently the 2011 City of Reedley WWTP Effluent Recycling Study found effluent recycling to be infeasible and/or too costly to be recommended as viable. The reuse alternatives considered direct farm irrigation of both private and City‐owned land, landscape and golf course irrigation, reuse by nearby irrigation districts, and reuse by an agricultural research field station. These alternatives would require costly tertiary treatment and disinfection to meet effluent requirements for irrigation of non‐fodder farmland. In addition, irrigation by recycled water is more expensive than irrigation by groundwater or water provided by irrigation districts. Therefore, there is currently no recycled water program in the City and no projections for the use of recycled water in the future, although City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | 6‐7
the City will continue to monitor effluent reuse options. Currently, the City’s wastewater effluent is discharged to percolation ponds for groundwater recharge which is subsequently pumped as groundwater for local crop irrigation.
6.2.5.1 Recycled Water Coordination
Law
CWC 10633
The plan shall provide, to the extent available, information on recycled water and its potential for use as a water source in the service area of the urban watersupplier. The preparation of the plan shall be coordinated with local water, wastewater, groundwater, and planning agencies that operate within the supplier’s service area.
The City does not currently or intend to provide recycled water services to customers within the service area.
6.2.5.2 Wastewater Collection, Treatment, and Disposal
Law
CWC 10633 (a)
A description of the wastewater collection and treatment systems in the supplier’s service area, including a quantification of the amount of wastewater collected and treated and the methods of wastewater disposal.
The City collects, treats, and recycles both municipal wastewater generated from a combination of residential, commercial, and industrial sources. Wastewater is collected and treated at the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) located approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the center of the City and on the west bank of the Kings River.
The Kings River forms the east and south boundaries of the WWTP. Land on the west and north boundaries is primarily agriculture.
The City’s WWTP provides primary and secondary treatment along with centrifuge dewatering of solids and effluent reclamation via percolation ponds. The City’s secondary effluent is not disinfected and is therefore classified as an “oxidized” (undisinfected secondary) wastewater according to California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22.
Undisinfected secondary effluent is severely limited by Title 22 for effluent allowable uses. Currently, the treated wastewater does not meet the recycled water standard. Table 6‐2 provides a total volume of wastewater collected within the service area in 2015.
Table 6‐2 Retail: Wastewater Collected Within Service Area in 2020 There is no wastewater collection system. The supplier will not complete the table below.
Wastewater Collection Recipient of Collected Wastewater Name of
Wastewater
Collection Agency
Wastewater
Volume Metered or
Estimated?
Volume of
Wastewater
Collected from
UWMP Service
Area in 2020
Name of
Wastewater
Treatment Agency
Receiving Collected
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Name
Is WWTP Located
Within UWMP
Area?
Is WWTP Operation
Contracted to a
Third Party?
City of
Reedley Metered 643 City of
Reedley
City of
Reedley Yes No
Total Wastewater Collected
from Service Area in 2020 (MG): 643
The City expanded the WWTP in November 2009 from a capacity of 3.0 million gallons per day (MGD) to 5.0 MGD. The expanded WWTF consists of headworks, two oxidation ditches, one anoxic basin, four secondary clarifiers, three return City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | 6‐8
sludge holding tanks, and three centrifuges. Effluent is discharged to six percolation ponds spanning approximately 36 acres adjacent to the Kings River.
In the past, the City discharged small portions of wastewater effluent to the Kings River, until the City’s NPDES permit wasrescinded in 2006. Currently, the City discharges undisinfected secondary effluent to six percolation ponds adjacent to the Kings River. The percolation ponds span approximately 36 acres.
Table 6‐3 provides a summary of the volume of wastewater treated and disposed of for calendar year 2020 by the City.
Table 6‐3 Retail: Wastewater Treatment and Discharge Within Service Area in 2020 No wastewater is treated or disposed of within the UWMP service area.
The supplier will not complete the table below.
Wastewater Treatment
Plant Name
Discharge Location Name
or Identifier
Discharge Location
Description
Wastewater Discharge ID
Number (optional)
Method of Disposal
Does This Plant Treat
Wastewater Generated
Outside the Service Area?
Treatment Level
2020 volumes
Wastewater Treated
Discharged Treated
Wastewater
Recycled Within
Service Area
Recycled Outside of
Service Area
Instream Flow
Permit Requirement
City of Reedley
Percolation Ponds
Percolation
Percolation
No
Secondary Undisinfected
643 643
Total (MG) 643 643
6.2.5.3 Recycled Water System Description
Law
CWC 10633 (c)
(b) A description of the recycled water currently being used in the supplier’s service area, including, but not limited to, the type, place, and quantity of use.
The City does not currently treat any wastewater to disinfected tertiary water standards to allow it to be used as a component of its water supply. Treated effluent is discharged into percolation ponds where it either evaporates or percolates. Table 6‐4 shows the current and projected recycled water uses through year 2040, but is not applicable to the City. Although not recognized as a beneficial reuse percolation provides additional groundwater recharge.
6.2.5.4 Potential, Current, and Projected Recycle Water Uses Law
CWC 10633
(b) A description of the quantity of treated wastewater that meets recycled water standards, is being discharged, and is otherwise available for use in a recycled water project. (d) A description and quantification of the potential uses of recycled water, including, but not limited to, agricultural irrigation, landscape irrigation, wildlife habitat enhancement, wetlands, industrial reuse, groundwater recharge, indirect City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | 6‐9
potable reuse, and other appropriate uses, and a determination with regard to the technical and economic feasibility of serving those uses.
(e) (Provide) a description of the actual use of recycled water in comparison to uses previously projected pursuant to this subdivision.
The City has no intentionsto implement a recycled watersystem or use recycled water at any location in the immediate future. Therefore, Table 6‐4 is not applicable to the City.
Table 6‐4 Retail: Current and Projected Recycled Water Direct Beneficial Uses Within Service Area Recycled water is not used and is not planned for use within the service area of the supplier.
The supplier will not complete the table below.
Name of Agency Producing
(Treating) the Recycled Water:
Name of Supplier Operating the
Recycled Water Distribution
System
Supplemental Water Added in
2020
Source of 2020 Supplemented
Water
Beneficial
Use Type
Potential
Beneficia
l Use of
Recycled
Water
General
Descripti
on of
2020
Uses
Level of
Treatment 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045(opt)
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total (MG): N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
As shown in Table 6‐5, recycled water was not used in 2015 nor projected for use in 2020.
6.2.5.5 Actions to Encourage and Optimize Future Recycled Water Use Law
CWC 10633
(f) (Describe the) actions, including financial incentives, which may be taken to encourage the use of recycled water, and the projected results of these actions in terms of acre‐feet of recycled water used per year.
CWC 10633
(g) (Provide a) plan for optimizing the use of recycled water in the supplier’s service area, including actions to facilitate the installation of dual distribution systems, to promote recirculating uses, to facilitate the increased use of treated wastewater that meets recycled water standards, and to overcome any obstacles to achieving that increased use.
As previously stated in the above sections, the City’s water recycling options have been determined to be infeasible or too expensive. Therefore, the City is not planning to change recycled water use in the near future. Given the current usage of treated wastewater for recharge purposes, there is no hydrological benefits to increasing such recycling use.
The City will expand the percolation areas as needed to be able to dispose 100 percent of the treated effluent.
Table 6‐5 Retail: 2015 UWMP Recycled Water Use Projection Compared to 2020 Actual Recycled water was not used in 2015 nor projected for use in 2020 The supplier will not complete the table below.
Use Type 2015 Projection for 2020 2020 Actual Use
N/A N/A N/A
Total (MG): N/A N/A
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | 6‐10
The City’s Public Works Department will encourage industrial and commercial customers to implement recycled water use programs within their sites. The City will assist industrial and commercial customers in designing recycling projects conducive to City operations. As part of the educational efforts of the City, recycling and conservation issues are included in school and public education forums. Since recycled water options have been determined to be infeasible, Table 6‐6 shows no methods to expand the City’s recycled water use. The City does not currently or intend to provide recycled water service to customers within the service area.
Table 6‐6 Retail: Methods to Expand Future Recycled Water Use Supplier does not plan to expand recycled water use in the future. Supplier will not complete the table below but will provide narrative explanation. 6‐9 Provide page location of narrative in UWMP
Name of Action Description
Planned
Implementation
Year
Expected Increase in
Recycled Water Use
N/A N/A N/A N/A
6.2.6 Desalinated Water Opportunities
Law
CWC 10631
(g) Describe the opportunities for development of desalinated water, including, but not limited to, ocean water, brackish water, and groundwater, as a long‐term supply
The City lies inland and is not located in a coastal area; therefore, desalination of seawater is not practical. In addition, because the groundwater below the City it not brackish, there are no plans to develop brackish groundwater desalination projects. As a result, the City does not intend to pursue desalination to augment water supplies at this time.
6.2.7 Water Exchanges and Transfers
Law
CWC 10631 (c)
Describe the opportunities for exchanges or transfers of water on a short‐term or long‐term basis.
The municipal water system that supplies the City’s water has historically been a consistent, reliable source of water; therefore, the City has not been required to exchange or transfer water to meet its demands. There are also no short‐ term or long‐term planned or potential future water exchanges in the region. In the event that untreated groundwater can no longer provide a consistent potable water source, new wells or a well head treatment will be used as needed to avoid a supply deficit.
Currently, it is not feasible for the City to purchase surface water rights. According to the Consolidated Irrigation District (CID) Groundwater Management Plan, if urban lands continue to develop and rely exclusively on groundwater, and if recharge facilities are not developed to help meet future urban demands, treatment of surface water for municipal use in lieu of groundwater may be needed. Due to the City’s proximity to AID and CID, it is conceivable that surface water could be supplied by these Districts. Direct recharge or groundwater banking projects could also facilitate exchanges in the future; however, nothing is planned at this time.
City of Reedley 2020 Urban Water Management Plan March 2022
Page | 6‐11
6.2.8 Future Water Projects
Law
CWC 10631
(f) Include a description of all watersupply projects and water supply programsthat may be undertaken by the urban water supplier to meet the total projected water use, as established pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 10635. The urban water supplier shall include a detailed description of expected future projects and programs… that the urban water supplier may implement to increase the amount of the water supply available to the urban water supplier in average, single‐dry, and multiple‐dry water years. The description shall identify specific projects and include a description of the increase in water supply that is expected to be available from each project. The description shall include an estimate with regard to the implementation timeline for each project or program.
The City currently relies solely on groundwater for its water supply. The City’s Integrated Master Plan establishes two planning phase periods: Phase 1 represents the period of 2014 to 2020 and Phase 2 represents the period beyond 2020 through the build out of the City’s SOI (approximately 2030). Asthe City continuesto expand and reach Phase 2 planned growth, additional wells will be required. A total of ten additional wells, each with a capacity of 2,000 gpm, will be needed to meet a maximum day demand (MDD) of 39.1 MGD by the end of Phase 2. If the yield is determined to be less than 2,000 gpm per well on average, additional wells will be required to make up the difference. Table 6‐7 lists the proposed water supply projects.