DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
for Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
December 2021
4Creeks, Inc.
324 S Santa Fe, Suite A
Visalia, CA 93292
Prepared By: Prepared For:
City of Visalia
707 W. Acequia Ave.
Visalia, CA 93291
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: Initial Study/MND Process 1-1
1.1 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines 1-1
1.2 Initial Study 1-1
1.3 Environmental Checklist 1-2
1.4 Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration/Notice of Preparation 1-2
1.5 Mitigated Negative Declaration 1-3
1.6 Intended Uses of the Environmental Assessment, Initial Study 1-3
1.7 Notice of Determination 1-3
1.8 CEQA Process Flow Chart 1-4
Section 2: Project Description 2-1
2.1 Project Description & Purpose 2-1
2.2 Project Location 2-1
2.3 Existing Setting 2-1
2.4 Other Permits and Approvals 2-2
Section 3: Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 3-1
3.1 Purpose 3-1
3.2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-2
3.3 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 3-7
3.4 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 3-8
3.5 Environmental Analysis 3-9
I. Aesthetics 3-9
II. Agriculture and Forest Resources 3-13
III. Air Quality 3-17
IV. Biological Resources 3-23
V. Cultural Resources 3-27
VI. Energy 3-30
VII. Geology and Soils 3-33
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3-39
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3-43
X. Hydrology and Water Quality 3-48
XI. Land Use and Planning 3-52
XII. Mineral Resources 3-56
XIII. Noise 3-58
XIV. Population and Housing 3-61
XV. Public Services 3-63
XVI. Parks and Recreation 3-65
XVII. T ransportation 3-66
XVIII. T ribal Cultural Resources 3-71
X IX. Utilities and Service Systems 3-75
XX. Wildfire 3-78
XX. Mandatory Findings of Significance 3-80
3.6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 3-82
3.7 Supporting Information and Sources 3-84
Section 4: List of Report Preparers 4-1
Appendices
Appendix A: Road Construction Emissions Model Results
Appendix B: Biological Evaluation
Appendix C: Cultural Resources Assessment
Appendix D: VMT Technical Memorandum
Appendix E: Energy Calculations
Appendix F: 30% Design Plans
List of Figures
2-1 Typical Cross Section Detail 2-1
2-2 Regional Location 2-3
2-3 Vicinity Map 2-4
3-1 Vicinity Map 3-5
3-2 Site Plan 3-6
3-3 Important Farmland Map 3-15
3-4 Soils Map 3-36
3-5 Distance to Schools and Airports 3-44
3-6 City of Tulare General Plan Land Use 3-53
3-7 Zoning Map 3-54
List of Tables
3-1 San Joaquin Valley Attainment Status 3-17
3-2 Ambient Air Quality Standards 3-19
3-3 SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance – Criteria Pollutants 3-20 3-4 Projected Project Emissions for Criteria Pollutants related to Construction 3-21 3-5 SCE and State Average Power Resources 3-30
3-6 Construction Related Energy Use 3-31
3-7 Greenhouse Gasses 3-40
3-8 Noise Levels of Noise-Generating Construction Equipment 3-59 3-9 VMT Forecast: Existing plus Project Conditions 3-68 3-10 VMT Forecast: Cumulative Conditions 3-69
3-11 Total Project Trips Forecast: Existing plus Project Conditions 3-69 3-12 Total Project Trips Forecast: Cumulative Conditions 3-69
Section 1
Initial Study/Negative
Declaration Process
1-1
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 City of Visalia
315 East Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
SECTION 1
CEQA Review Process
Project Title: Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
1.1 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) Guidelines requires that the Lead Agency prepare an Initial Study to determine whether a discretionary project will have a significant effect on the environment. All phases of the project planning, implementation, and operation must be considered in the Initial Study. The purposes of an Initial Study, as listed under Section 15063(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, include:
(1) Provide the lead agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR or negative declaration;
(2) Enable an applicant or lead agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a negative declaration; (3) Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by:
(a) Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant, (b) Identifying the effects determined not to be significant, (c) Explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be significant, and
(d) Identifying whether a program EIR, tiering, or another appropriate process can be used for analysis of the project's environmental effects.
(4) Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project; (5) Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a negative declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment
(6) Eliminate unnecessary EIRs;
(7) Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project.
1.2 Initial Study
The Initial Study provided herein covers the potential environmental effect s of the proposed reconstruction of approximately 1 mile of existing roadway to accommodate a 4-lane arterial street. The City of Visalia will act as the Lead Agency for processing the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines.
1-2
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021
1.3 Environmental Checklist
The Lead Agency may use the CEQA Environmental Checklist Form [CEQA Guidelines, Section 15063(d)(3) and (f)] in preparation of an Initial Study to provide information for determination if there are significant effects of the project on the environment. A copy of the completed Environmental Checklist is set forth in Section Three.
1.4 Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration
The Lead Agency shall provide a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15072) to the public, responsible agencies, trustee agencies and the County Clerk within which the project is located, sufficiently prior to adoption by the Lead Agency of the Negative Declaration to allow the public and agencies the review period. The public review period (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15105) shall not be less than 30 days when the Initial Study/Negative Declaration is submitted to the State Clearinghouse unless a shorter period, not less than 20 days, is approved by the State Clearinghouse.
Prior to approving the project, the Lead Agency shall consider the proposed Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process, and shall adopt the proposed Negative Declaration only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Negative Declaration reflects the Lead Agency’s independent judgment and analysis.
The written and oral comments received during the public review period will be considered by The City of Visalia prior to adopting the Negative Declaration. Regardless of the type of CEQA document that must be prepared, the overall purpose of the CEQA process is to:
1) Assure that the environment and public health and safety are protected in the face of discretionary projects initiated by public agencies or private concerns; 2) Provide for full disclosure of the project’s environmental effects to the public, the agency decision- makers who will approve or deny the project, and the responsible trustee agencies charged with managing resources (e.g. wildlife, air quality) that may be affected by the project; and 3) Provide a forum for public participation in the decision -making process pertaining to potential environmental effects.
According to Section 15070(a) a public agency shall prepare or have prepared a proposed negative declaration for a project subject to CEQA when:
The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
Less than significant impacts with mitigation measures have been identified.
The Environmental Checklist Discussion contained in Section Three of this document has determined that the environmental impacts of the project are less than significant with mitigation measures and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate for adoption by the Lead Agency.
1-3
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021
1.5 Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration
The Lead Agency shall prepare or have prepared a proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration (CEQA Guidelines Section 15070) for a project subject to CEQA when the Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration circulated for public review shall include the following:
(a) A brief description of the project, including a commonly used name for the project. (b) The location of the project, preferably shown on a map. (c) A proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. (d) An attached copy of the Initial Study documenting reasons to support the finding. (e) Mitigation measures, if any.
1.6 Intended Uses of Initial Study/Negative Declaration documents
The Initial Study/Negative Declaration document is an informational document that is intended to inform decision-makers, other responsible or inter ested agencies, and the general public of potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The environmental review process has been established to enable the public agencies to evaluate environmental consequences and to examine and implement methods of eliminating or reducing any adverse impacts. While CEQA requires that consideration be given to avoiding environmental damage, the Lead Agency must balance any potential environmental effects against other public objectives, including economic and social goals. The City of Visalia, as Lead Agency, will make a determination, based on the environmental review for the Environmental Study, Initial Study and comments from the general public, if there are less than significant impacts from the proposed project and the requirements of CEQA can be met by adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
1.7 Notice of Determination (NOD)
The Lead Agency shall file a Notice of Determination within five working days after deciding to approve the project. The Notice of Determination (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15075) shall include the following:
(1) An identification of the project including the project title as identified on the proposed negative declaration, its location, and the State Clearinghouse identification number for the proposed negative declaration if the notice of determination is filed with the State Clearinghouse. (2) A brief description of the project.
(3) The agency's name and the date on which the agency approved the project. (4) The determination of the agency that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. (5) A statement that a negative declaration or a mitigated negative declaration was adopted pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
(6) A statement indicating whether mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project, and whether a mitigation monitoring plan/program was adopted. (7) The address where a copy of the negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration may be examined.
(8) The identity of the person undertaking a project which is supported, in whole or in part, through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies or the identity of the person receiving a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use from one or more public agencies.
1-4
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021
1.8 CEQA Process Flow Chart
Section 2
Project Description
2-1
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 City of Visalia
315 East Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
SECTION 2
Project Description
Project Title: Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
2.1 Project Description & Purpose
The proposed project involves the reconstruction of 1 mile of existing roadway between Kelsey Street and Shirk Street to accommodate a 4 -lane arterial street with 110’ total ROW. Improvements would include new 12’ vehicular travel lanes (4 lanes total), new Class II bike lanes, new street lighting, new landscaped medians, a new bus turnout, new fire hydrants, new sewer line, new traffic signal, and curb returns at all involved intersections. A typical cross section detail is provided below (Figure 2-1 ). Construction would require demolition of existing asphalt between Kelsey Street and Shirk Street, removal of trees along Riggin Avenue frontage (including 2-3 rows of orchard trees along the north side of Riggin Avenue), and relocation of 17 existing power po les. Construction is proposed to begin January 2022 and continue through May 2022. Maps showing project layout and regional location are provided in Figures 2-2 and 2-
3. Detailed improvement plans are provided in Appendix F.
Figure 2-1. Typical Cross Section Detail.
2.2 Project Location
The proposed project site is located partially within the City of Visalia and partially within unincorporated Tulare County. The project would affect approximately 14 acres within City/County ROW along Riggin Avenue from Kelsey Street to Shirk Street. The site is bordered by agricultural uses to the north and south.
2.3 Existing Setting
The segment of Riggin Avenue that the Project proposes to widen is currently a two -lane road with a pavement width of approximately 24 feet and ROW width of 40’. This road is the entryway to the City’s planned Industrial Park. The surrounding area is partially developed with industrial uses, and some properties are underdeveloped and remain under agricultural use.
2-2
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021
2.4 Other Permits and Approvals
Other permits and approvals required for the Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk) Project are listed below. It should be noted that this list is not exhaustive and additional permits and approvals may also be required.
• City of Visalia Building and Encroachment Permits
• City of Visalia Grading Permits
• City of Visalia approved Landscape and Design Plans
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). The proposed project is within the jurisdiction of the SJVAPCD and will be required to comply with Rule VIII, 3135, 4101, and 9510. • Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, SWPPP. The proposed project site is within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Central Valley RWQCB will require a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to prevent impacts related to stormwater as a result of project construction.
2-3
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021
Figure 2-2
2-4
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021
Figure 2-3
Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental
Impacts
3-1
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 City of Visalia
315 East Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
SECTION 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Project Title: Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
This document is the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed reconstruction of approximately 1 mile of existing roadway to accommodate a 4-lane arterial street. The proposed project site is located partially within the City of Visalia and partially within unincorporated Tulare County . The City of Visalia will act as the Lead Agency for this project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines.
3.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this environmental document is to implement the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Section 15002(a) of the CEQA Guidelines describes the basic purposes of CEQA as follows.
(1) Inform governmental decision -makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities.
(2) Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. (3) Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible.
(4) Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved.
This Initial Study of environmental impacts has been prepared to conform to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.).
According to Section 15070(a), a Negative Declaration is appropriate if it is determined that:
(1) The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
3-2
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021
3.2 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
1. Project Title: Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
2. Lead Agency: City of Visalia
315 East Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
(559) 713-4359
3. Applicant: City of Visalia
Contact Person: Diego Corvera
315 East Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
(559) 713-4209
4. Project Location: The proposed project site is located partially within the City of Visalia and partially within unincorporated Tulare County. The project would affect approximately 14 acres within City/County ROW along Riggin Avenue from Kelsey Street to Shirk Street. The site is bordered by agricultural uses to the north and south.
5. General Plan Designation: This segment of Riggin Avenue is designated as a future arterial (Year 1 - 10) in the Circulation Element of the City of Visalia General Plan.
6. Zoning Designation: The project will take place within ROW, outside of zoning designations.
7. Project Description: The proposed project involves the reconstruction of 1 mile of existing roadway between Kelsey Street and Shirk Street to accommodate a 4-lane arterial street with 110’ total ROW.
Improvements would include new 12’ vehicular travel lanes (4 lanes total), new Class II bike lanes, new street lighting, new landscaped medians, a new bus turnout, new fire hydrants, new sewer line, new traffic signal, and curb returns at all involved intersections. A typical cross section detail is shown in Figure 2 -1. Construction would require demolition of exis ting asphalt between Kelsey Street and Shirk Street, removal of trees along Riggin Avenue frontage (including 2-3 rows of orchard trees along the north side of Riggin Avenue), and relocation of 17 existing power poles. Construction is proposed to begin January 2022 and continue through May 2022. See Figure 3-2 for site layout.
8. Surrounding Land Use Designations and Settings:
North Industrial/Light Industrial, currently under agricultural use.
South Industrial/Light Industrial, currently under agricultural and industrial use.
West Industrial, currently agricultural and industrial use.
East Residential Medium Density, currently single-family residential and vacant/agricultural use.
9. Required Approvals: No discretionary approvals are required from The City of Visalia for the proposed project.
3-3
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021
10. Native American Consultation: On October 26, 2020, an e -mail was sent to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) requesting a search of its Sacred Lands File and the contact information for local Native American tribal representatives who may have an interest in sharing information about the Project area and surrounding area. The NAHC responded on November 9, 2020, with its search findings and attached a list of Native American tribes and individuals culturally affiliated with the Project area. On November 10, 2020, a letter desc ribing the project was sent to each of the individuals identified in the NAHC response. Follow-up contact by e-mail was completed on November 12, 2020 and telephone calls were placed on November 18, 2020 to confirm receipt of the letter and gather any info rmation tribal representatives may want to share about resources in the Project area or general vicinity. Three responses were received during this outreach process. A representative from the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi -Yokut Tribe requested that an archaeological records search and cultural resources survey be done before any ground disturbance. The other two responses indicated that the Tribe had no comment on the proposed project. Native American Consultation efforts are detailed further in The Cultural Resources Assessment (Appendix C).
11. Parking and access: During construction, workers will utilize a temporary construction easement located adjacent to the project site for parking and equipment staging.
12. Landscaping and Design: The landscape and design plans will be required at time the project submits for building permit on the project and will be subject to the City of Visalia’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO).
13. Utilities and Electrical Services: The proposed project will extend sewer and storm drain lines along Riggin Avenue as a part of current development standards. Electrical services are provided by SCE and the project will involve relocation of 17 existing power poles located on the north side of the street. The existing 12” water main along the south side of Riggin Ave will remain in-place.
3-4
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 Acronyms
BMP Best Management Practices
CAA Clean Air Act
CCR California Code of Regulation
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CWA California Water Act
DHS Department of Health Services
FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report
FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act
ISMND Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
ND Negative Declaration
NAC Noise Abatement Criteria
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SHPO State Historic Preservation Office
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
3-5
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021
Figure 3-1
3-6
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021
Figure 3-2. Site Plan.
Shirk Street
Kelsey Street
3-7
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021
3.3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately support by the information sources a lead agency cites, in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off- site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR if required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequate analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c) (3)(D).
In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following.
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated.” Describe and mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they ad dress site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
3-8
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021
3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Public Services Agriculture and Forest Resources Hazards and Hazardous Materials Recreation Air Quality Hydrology and Water Quality Transportation Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service System Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Wildfire Energy Noise Mandatory Findings of Geology and soils Population Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) Where potential impacts are anticipated to be significant, mitigation measures will be required, so that impacts may be avoided or reduced to insignificant levels.
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as de scribed on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is requested.
_____________________________________________ ________ ______________________
SIGNATURE DATE
Paul Bernal, City Planner City of Visalia
PRINTED NAME AGENCY
3-9
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021
3.5 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The following section provides an evaluation of the impact categories and questions contained in the checklist and identify mitigation measures, if applicable.
I. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resource Code
Section 210999, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within state
scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings? (Public
views are those that are experienced from a
publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is
in an urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Environmental Setting
There are no aesthetic resources identified in the City of Visalia General Plan; however, the views of the Sierra Nevada Mountains are considered to be an important scenic vista in Tulare County.
Sierra Nevada Mountains: The Sierra Nevada mountain range and its foothills stretch along the east area of the county and are a valuable aesthetic resource. Additionally, Sequoia National Park is located within the stretch of the Sierra Nevada Mountains located in Tulare County. Sequoia National Forest is a U.S.
National Forest known for its mountain scenery and natural resources. Located directly north of Sequoia National Park is Kings Canyon National Park, a U.S. National Park also known for its towering sequoia trees and scenic vistas. The Sierra Nevada Mountains are approximately 20 miles east of the proposed project site but views of the mountains are not visible on most days due to poor air quality.
The following photos demonstrate the aesthetic character of the project area. As shown, the proposed project site is located in a relatively flat area with primarily agricultural uses. 3-10
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021
Photo 1: View of Riggin Avenue looking east. Photo 2: View of Riggin Avenue looking west.
Source: 4-Creeks, 6/21/2020 Source: 4-Creeks, 6/21/2020
Photo 3: View of from south side of Riggin Avenue looking north. Source: 4-Creeks, 6/21/2020
3-11
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 Regulatory Setting
State Scenic Highways: The State Scenic Highway Program is implemented by Caltrans and was developed to preserve the aesthetic quality of certain highway corridors. Highways included in this program are designated as scenic highways. A highway is designated as scenic based on how much of the natural landscape is visible to travelers, the quality of that landscape, and the extent to which development obstructs views of the landscape. The 44-mile stretch of State Route 198 between State Route 99 and Sequoia National Park is classified as eligible for State Scenic Highway status, but is not officially designated. There are no designated State Scenic Highways within the City of Visalia.
City of Visalia General Plan: The City of Visalia General Plan includes the following goals and policies that are intended to protect the City’s aesthetic resources that are applicable to the proposed project:
• LU-O-15 Maintain and enhance Visalia’s physical diversity, visual qualities and small- town characteristics.
• LU-P-37 Adopt specific development standards for scenic entryways (gateways) and roadway corridors into the City, including special setback and landscape standards, open space and park development, and/or land use designations. These standards will apply to the west and east entries into Visalia along Highway 198 and to the “gateway boulevards” identified in the Transportation Element: Caldwell and Riggin Avenues; Shirk Road; and Lovers Lane • LU-P-42 Develop scenic corridor and gateway guidelines that will maintain the agricultural character of Visalia at its urban fringe.
Discussion
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No Impact: A scenic vista is defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. The Sierra Nevada Mountains are the primary scenic vista within this region and the Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan states that view corridors to the mountains should be preserved. The foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains are approximately 20 miles east of the proposed project site, however views of the mountains are not visible on most days due to poor air quality. The proposed project would not result in any vertical construction that could effect views of the Sierra Nevada Mountains or any other scenic vista. There is no impact.
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within state scenic highway?
No Impact: There are no Officially Designated State Scenic Highways within the City of Visalia.
Highway 198 is the nearest Eligible State Scenic Highway and is located approximately 2 miles south of the project site. Significant urban development between the project site and Highway 198 completely eliminates visibility of the project site from the highway. There is no impact.
3-12
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanize d area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
No Impact: The proposed project site is located in an area characterized by agricultural activity, however the project would not negatively impact th e existing visual character. Proposed improvements include new vehicular travel lanes, new Class II bike lanes, new street lighting, new landscaped medians, a new bus turnout, new fire hydrants, new sewer line, new traffic signal, and curb returns. All proposed improvements will be done in accordance with City development standards and will not affect the surrounding visual character. There is no impact.
d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project would result in new street lighting consistent with the City’s development standards, which are developed to minimize impacts related to excessive light and glare. The impacts are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures for Aesthetic Resources
None Required
3-13
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES:
In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture
and farmland. In determining whether impacts to
forest resources, including timberland, are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to information compiled by the
California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection regarding the state’s inventory of
forest land, including the Forest and Range
Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment project; and forest carbon
measurement methodology provided in the
Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air
Resources Board. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act Contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),
or timberland zoned timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g)?
d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment, which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to
non-agricultural use or conversion of forestland to
non-forest use?
3-14
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 Environmental Setting
Agriculture is a vital component of the City of Visalia’s economy and is a significant source of the City’s cultural identity. As such, preserving the productivity of agricultural lands is integral to maintaining the City’s culture and economic viability.
The proposed project site is designated as Prime Farmland and C onfined Animal Agriculture under the Important Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, however the site is located within the public Right-of-Way and would not impact farming activities.
Regulatory Setting
California Land Conservation Act of 1965: The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, allows local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners to restrict the activities on specific parcels of land to agricultural or open space uses. Th e landowners benefit from the contract by receiving greatly reduced property tax assessments. The California Land Conservation Act is overseen by the California Department of Conservation; however local governments are responsible for determining specific allowed uses and enforcing the contract.
California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP): The FMMP is implemented by the California Department of Conservation (DOC) to conserve and protect agricultural lands within the State.
Land is included in this program based on soil type, annual crop yields, and other factors that influence the quality of farmland. The FMMP mapping categories for the most important statewide farmland are as follows:
• Prime Farmland has the ideal physical and chemical composition for crop production. It has been used for irrigated production in the four years prior to classification and is capable of producing sustained yields.
• Farmland of Statewide Importance has also been used for irrigated production in the four years prior to classification and is only slightly poorer quality than Prime Farmland. • Unique Farmland has been cropped in the four years prior to classification and does not meet the criteria for Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance but has produced specific crops with high economic value.
• Farmland of Local Importance encompasses farmland that does not meet the criteria for the previous three categories. These may lack irrigation, produce major crops, be zoned as agricultural, and/or support dairy.
• Grazing Land has vegetation that is suitable for grazing livestock.
3-15
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 Figure 3-3
3-16
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 Discussion
a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact: The proposed site is classified as Prime Farmland and Confined Animal Agriculture by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and M onitoring Program, however the Project itself is a road widening project and will not result in the significant loss of agricultural lands and would not convert farmland to non-agricultural use. There is no impact.
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract?
No Impact: The proposed project site is within the public ROW and is therefore not zoned for agricultural use or under a Williamson Act Contract. There is no impact.
c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)?
No Impact: The project site located within the public ROW and is therefore not zoned for forest or timberland production. There is no impact.
d) Would the project result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact: The proposed project site is located within the public ROW and would not convert forestland to non-forest use. There is no impact.
e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forestland to non-forest use?
No Impact: As discussed above, the proposed project site is located within the public ROW. The project would not result in the loss of Farmland to non -agricultural use or forestland to non- forest use. There is no impact.
Mitigation Measures for Agricultural and Forest Resources
None Required
3-17
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 III. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality
management district or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
Environmental Setting
Air pollution is directly related to regional topography. Topographic features can either stimulate the movement of air or restrict air movement. California is divided into regional air basins based on topographic air drainage features. The proposed project site is within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, which is bordered by the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east, Coastal Ranges to the west, and the Tehachapi Mountains to the south. The mountain ranges surrounding the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) serve to restrict air movement and prevent the dispersal of pollution. As shown in the Table 3-1, the SJVAB is in nonattainment for several pollutant standards.
Pollutant Designation/Classification
Federal Standards State Standards
Ozone – One hour No Federal StandardD Nonattainment/Severe Ozone – Eight hour Nonattainment/ExtremeC Nonattainment PM 10 AttainmentA Nonattainment
PM 2.5 NonattainmentB Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
Lead (Particulate) No Designation/Classification Attainment Hydrogen Sulfide No Federal Standard Unclassified
Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment
Visibility Reducing Particles No Federal Standard Unclassified Vinyl Chloride No Federal Standard Attainment
A. 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.
B. The Valley is designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA designated the Valley as nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on November 13, 2009 (effective December 14, 2009).
C. Though the Valley was initially classified as serious nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, EPA approved Valley reclassification to extreme nonattainment in the Federal Register on May 5, 2010 (effective June 4, 2010).
D. Effective June 15, 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revoked the federal 1-hour ozone standard, including associated designations and classifications. EPA had previously classified the SJVAB as extreme nonattainment 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 ozone nonattainment areas continue to apply to the SJVAB.
Table 3-1. San Joaquin Valley Attainment Status; Source: SJVAPCD
3-18
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 Regulatory Setting
Federal Clean Air Act – The 1977 Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) authorized the establishment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and set deadlines for their attainment. The Clean Air Act identifies specific emission reduction goals, requires both a demonstration of reasonable further progress and an attainment demonstration, and incorporates more stringent sanctions for failure to meet interim milestones. The U.S. EPA is the federal agency charged with administering the Act and other air quality - related legislation. EPA’s principal functions include setting NAAQS; establishing minimum national emission limits for major sources of pollution; and promulgating regulations. Under CAA, the NCCAB is identified as an attainment area for all pollutants.
California Clean Air Act – California Air Resources Board coordinates and oversees both state and federal air pollution control programs in California. As part of this responsibility, California Air Resources Board monitors existing air quality, establishes California Ambient Air Quality Standards, and limits allowable emissions from vehicular sources. Regulatory authority within established air basins is provided by air pollution control and management districts, which control stationary-source and most categories of area- source emissions and develop regional air quality plans. The project is located within the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.
The state and federal standards for the criteria pollutants are presented in Section 8.4 of The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District’s 2015 “Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts”. These standards are designed to protect public health and welfare. The “primary” standards have been established to protect the public health. The “secondary” standards are intended to protect the nation’s welfare and account for air pollutant effects on soils, water, visibility, materials, vegetation and other aspects of general welfare. The U.S. EPA revoked the national 1 -hour ozone standard on June 15, 2005, and the annual PM
10 standard on September 21, 2006, when a new PM2.5 24-hour standard was established.
Pollutant Averaging Time
California Standards1 National Standards2
Concentration3 Method4 Primary3,5 Secondary3,6 Method7
Ozone (03)
1 Hour 0.09 ppm
(180 μg/m3) Ultraviolet
Photometry
-- Same as
Primary
Standard
Ultraviolet 8
Hour
Photometry 8 Hour 0.070 ppm
(137 μg/m3)
0.075 ppm
(147 μg/m3)
Respirable
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
24 Hour 50 μg/m Gravimetric or
Beta
Attenuation
150 μg/m3 Same as
Primary
Standard
Inertial
Separation and
Gravimetric
Annual Analysis
Annual
Arithmetic Mean 20 μg/m3 --
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
24 Hour Gravimetric or
Beta
Attenuation
35 μg/m3 Same as
Primary
Standard
Inertial
Separation and
Gravimetric
Annual Analysis
Annual
Arithmetic Mean 12 μg/m3 15 μg/m3
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
1 Hour 20 ppm
(23 mg/m3) Non-Dispersive
Infrared
Photometry
(NDIR)
35 ppm
(40 mg/m3) -- Non-Dispersive
Infrared
Photometry
(NDIR)
8 Hour 9.0 ppm
(10 mg/m3)
9 ppm (10
mg/m3) --
8 Hour (Lake
Tahoe)
6 ppm
(7 mg/m3) -- --
Nitrogen
Dioxide 1 Hour 0.18 ppm
(339 μg/m3)
100 ppb (188
μg/m3) -- Gas Phase
Annual
3-19
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 Pollutant Averaging Time
California Standards1 National Standards2
Concentration3 Method4 Primary3,5 Secondary3,6 Method7
(NO2) 8
Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm
(57 μg/m3)
Gas Phase
Chemiluminesce
nce
53 ppb (100
μg/m3)
Same as
Primary
Standard
Chemiluminesc
ence
Sulfur
Dioxide
1 Hour 0.25 ppm
(655 μg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
75 ppb (196
μg/m3) --
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence;
Spectrophotom
etry
(Pararosaniline
Method)
3 Hour -- -- 0.5 ppm
(1300 μg/m3)
24 Hour 0.04 ppm
(105 μg/m3)
0.14 ppm (for
certain
areas)9
--
Annual
Arithmetic Mean --
0.030 ppm
(for certain
areas)9
--
Lead10,11
30 Day Average 1.5 μg/m3
Atomic
Absorption
-- --
High Volume
Sampler and
Atomic
Absorption
Calendar Quarter --
1.5 μg/m3
(for certain
areas)11
Same as
Primary
Standard Rolling 3-Month
Average -- 0.15 μg/m3
Visibility
Reducing
Particles12
8 Hour See footnote
12 Beta
Attenuation and
Transmittance
through Filter
Tape
No National Standard Sulfates 24 Hour 25 μg/m3
Ion
Chromatograph
y
Hydrogen
Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm
(42 μg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
Vinyl
Chloride10 24 Hour
0.01 ppm
(26 μg/m3)
Gas
Chromatograph
y
1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.
2. National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24 hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24 hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact the U.S. EPA for further clarification and current national policies.
3. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.
4. Any equivalent measurement method which can be shown to the satisfaction of the ARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used.
5. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health.
6. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
7. Reference method as described by the U.S. EPA. An “equivalent method” of measurement may be used but must have a “consistent relationship to the reference method” and must be approved by the U.S. EPA.
8. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98 th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note that the national standards are in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the national standards to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standards of 53 ppb and 100 ppb are identical to 0.053 ppm and 0.100 ppm, respectively.
9. On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved. Note that the 1-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm.
10. The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as ‘toxic air contaminants’ with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.
11. The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008 to a rolling 3-month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.
12. In 1989, the ARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standard 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.
Table 3-2. Ambient Air Quality Standards; Source: SJVAPCD 3-20
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) – The SJVAPCD is responsible for enforcing air quality standards in the project area. To meet state and federal air quality objectives, the SJVAPCD adopted the following thresholds of significance for projects (Table 3 -3). Additionally, the following SJVAPCD rules and regulations may apply to the proposed project:
• Rule 3135: Dust Control Plan Fee. All projects which include construction, demolition, excavation, extraction, and/or other earth moving activities as defined by Regulation VIII (Described below) are required to submit a Dust Control Plan and required fees to mitigate impacts related to dust. • Rule 4101: Visible Emissions. District Rule 4101 prohibits visible emissions of air contaminants that are dark in color and/or have the potential to obstruct visibility. • Rule 9510: Indirect Source Review (ISR). This rule reduces the impact PM10 and NOX emissions from growth on the SJVB. This rule places application and emission reduction requirements on applicable development projects in order to reduce emissions through onsite mitigation, offsite SJVAPCD administered projects, or a combination of the two. • Regulation VIII: Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions. Regulation VIII is composed of eight rules which together aim to limit PM10 emissions by reducing fugitive dust. These rules contain required management practices to limit PM10 emissions during construction, demolition, excavation, extraction, and/or other earth moving activities.
Pollutant/
Precursor
Construction
Emissions
Operational Emissions
Permitted Equipment and
Activities
Non-Permitted Equipment and
Activities
Emissions (tpy) Emissions (tpy) Emissions (tpy)
CO 100 100 100
Nox 10 10 10
ROG 10 10 10
SOx 27 27 27
PM10 15 15 15
PM2.5 15 15 15
Table 3-3. SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance for Criteria Pollutants; Source: SJVAPCD
Discussion
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No Impact: The proposed project is located within the boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) and would result in air pollutant emissions that are regulated by the air district during both its construction and operational phases . The SJVAPCD is responsible for bringing air quality in Tulare County into compliance with federal and state air quality standards. The air district has Particulate Matter (PM) plans, Ozone Plans, and Carbon Monoxide Plans that serve as the clean air plan for the basin. Together, these plans quantify the required emission reductions to meet federal and state air quality standards and provide strategies to meet these standards.
Construction Phase. Project construction would generate pollutant emissions from the following construction activities: grubbing/land clearing, grading/excavation, drainage/utilities/sub-grade, and paving. The construction related emissions from these activities were calculated using Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 9.0.0. The full Emissions Model results are available in 3-21
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 Appendix A. As shown in Table 3-4 below, project construction related emissions do not exceed the thresholds established by the SJVAPCD.
CO
(tpy)
ROG
(tpy)
SOx
(tpy)*
Nox
(tpy)
PM10
(tpy)
PM2.5
(tpy)
Emissions Generated from Project
Construction 3.92 0.45 0.01 4.71 6.75 1.54
SJVAPCD Air Quality Thresholds of
Significance 100 10 27 10 15 15
*Threshold established by SJVAPCD for SOx, however emissions are reported as SO2 by the Road Construction Emissions Model.
Table 3-4. Projected Project Emissions Compared to SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance for Criteria Pollutants related to Construction; Source: SJVAPCD, Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 9.0.0 (Appendix A)
Operational Phase. The proposed project is being implemented in response to existing and planned growth in the area. Riggin Avenue is identified in the City’s General Plan as a future arterial. Arterials collect and distribute traffic from freeways and expressways to collector streets. The Project will improve local roadway conditions to accommodate traffic that has already been planned for and analyzed in the City’s General Plan EIR. The project itself would not generate any additional vehicle trips and there will be no stationary source emissions resulting from the Project.
Because the emissions from Project construction would not exceed the thresholds of significance established by the SJVAPCD, and the Project would result in operational emissions beyond the mobile source emissions that have been previously analyzed in the City’s General Plan EIR, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan and there is no impact.
b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less Than Significant Impact: The SJVAPCD accounts for cumulative impacts to air quality in Section
1.8 “Thresholds of Significance – Cumulative Impacts” in its 2015 Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. The SJVAPCD considered basin- wide cumulative impacts to air quality when developing its significance thresholds. Because Project emissions are below the significance thresholds adopted by the air district, and compliance with SJVAPCD rules will address any cumulative impacts regarding operational emissions, impacts regarding cumulative emissions would be less than significant.
c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less Than Significant Impact: The single-family residences located to the east of the proposed Project site are the closest sensitive receptors. The Project would not exceed emissions thresholds established by the SJVAPCD and would not result in operational emissions beyond the mobile source emissions that were previously analyzed in the City’s General Plan EIR. The project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The impact would be less than significant.
3-22
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact : The project will create temporary localized odors during project construction. These odors are not likely to be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the perimeter of the Project site. Once constructed, the project will not create any new sources of odor that result directly from the project. The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people and the impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures for Air Quality
None Required
3-23
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish & Game or U.S. fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through director removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Discussion for this section originates from the Biological Resource Assessment that was prepared for this project by Soar Environmental Consulting, Inc. in December 2020 to identify sensitive biological resources, provide project impact analysis, and sugge st mitigation measures. The full document can be found in Appendix B of this Initial Study.
Environmental Setting
The Project Footprint is comprised of portions of Tulare County Assessor Parcel Numbers 077 -840-001 and 077-840-003 and is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Goshen and Visalia, 7.5 - minute quadrangles, at an elevation ranging from approximately 300 to 330 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The Project site has historically been used for agricultural purposes. The land use north of Riggin Avenue is currently active almond and pistachio orchards . The adjacent land uses to the south of Riggin Avenue are active agricultural land and a livestock feed lot. Residential homes are present along Riggin 3-24
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 Avenue and east of Shirk St reet south of Riggin Avenue. In the western portion of the Project Footprint south of Riggin Avenue, the biologist noted newly installed landscaped sidewalks with curb and gutter fronting various commercial enterprises. Overhead utility lines follow the north side of Riggin Avenue.
Prior to field activities, Soar Environmental researched the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), to learn which species could potentially be present onsite. Soar Environmental researched specific species and habitat requirements for the species noted in the CNDDB, California Native Plant Society (CNPS), and IPaC databases and included proximal species observations and species status for these, and surrounding parcels, in this report.
On November 12, 2020, Soar Environmental Biologist Casey Stewman performed a pedestrian habitat assessment of the Project Footprint, which is comprised of highly compacted and disturbed road shoulders, and active orchards, whose rows are maintained free of vegetation using mechanical and chemical methods. No native or natural plant communities occur in the 14 -acre Project Footprint. Rock dove (Columba livia), brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), and one red-tail hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) were observed within the Project Footprint. However, the surrounding commercial orchards appeared to have more avian activity than the Project site itself.
Regulatory Setting
Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA): defines an endangered species as “any species or subspecies that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” A threatened species is defined as “any species or subspecies that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.”
The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (FMBTA: 16 USC 703-712): FMBTA prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in any bird species covered in one of four international conventions to which the United States is a party, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. The name of the act is misleading, as it actually covers almost all birds native to the United States, even those that are non-migratory. The FMBTA encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs.
Although the USFWS and its parent administration, the U.S. Department of the Interior, have traditionally interpreted the FMBTA as prohibiting incidental as well as intentional “take” of birds, a January 2018 legal opinion issued by the Department of the Interior now states that incidental take of migratory birds while engaging in otherwise lawful activities is permissible under the FMBTA. However, California Fish and Game Code makes it unlawful to take or possess any non -game bird covered by the FMBTA (Section 3513), as well as any other native non-game bird (Section 3800), even if incidental to lawful activities.
Birds of Prey (CA Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5):Birds of prey are protected in California under provisions of the Fish and Game Code (Section 3503.5), which states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes (hawks and eagles) or Strigiformes (owls), as well as their nests and eggs. The bald eagle and golden eagle are afforded additional protection under the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668), which makes it unlawful to kill birds or their eggs.
Clean Water Act: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of (1972) is to maintain, restore, and enhance the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) re gulates discharges of dredged and fill materials into 3-25
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 “waters of the United States” (jurisdictional waters). Waters of the US including navigable waters of the United States, interstate waters, tidally influenced waters, and all other waters where the use , degradation, or destruction of the waters could affect interstate or foreign commerce, tributaries to any of these waters, and wetlands that meet any of these criteria or that are adjacent to any of these waters or their tributaries.
California Endanger ed Species Act (CESA): prohibits the take of any state -listed threatened and endangered species. CESA defines take as “any action or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill any listed species.” If the proposed project results in a take of a list ed species, a permit pursuant to Section 2080 of CESA is required from the CDFG.
City of Visalia Valley Oak Tree Ordinance: The City's Valley Oak Ordinance establishes policies for the care, trimming and removal of Valley Oaks. The ordinance also establishes an in-kind mitigation program and mitigation fee program for the removal of oak trees.
Discussion
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish & Game or U.S. fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact: The existing roadway system, agricultural activities, and development within the project area, have altered the natural landscape by the introduction of horticultural and non- native plant species and by the removal of potentially suitable native habitat for sensitive plant or animal species within the APE. No impacts are expected to any of the special -status species that have any potential to occur in the APE. There is no impact.
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact: During the Habitat Assessment performed by Soar Environmental, no riparian habitat nor other sensitive natural communities were observed on -site. Development of the proposed project would not impact any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
There is no impact.
c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through director removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact: No water or other hydrologic features occur within the limits of construction and operation of the proposed project. There are no jurisdictional water features and no nexus to Waters of the United States. Therefore, no impacts to state or federally protected wetlands would occur due to the proposed project.
There is no impact.
3-26
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant Impact: The project involves widening an existing two lane paved road from 30’ wide to 74’ wide, and also includes other improvements such as sidewalks, landscaped medians and bike paths on each side of the road and traffic signals at one intersection. This roadway widening project will likely have some negative impact on the ease of movement of resident special- status wildlife because the paved roadway is getting wider. However, the West Riggin Avenue Widening Project is surrounded on all sides by active agricultural lands (south and east), orchards (north), commercial development (southwest) and urban housing (southeast). The Project contains no waterways, streambeds, wetlands, or natural communities. As such, the project would not interfer e substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish, wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites. Converting land use from active agriculture and orchard and unvegetated ROW is considered a Less than Significant Impact.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The City of Visalia Valley Oak Tree Ordinance contains requirements to preserve and maintain valley oak (Quercus lobata) trees in and near the City and requires mitigation based on the size or diameter at breast height (dbh) of the valley oak being removed in order to be issued a permit for removal (City of Visalia, 2020). In addition, th e City of Visalia has regulations guiding the replanting and establishment of replacement valley oak trees in areas where they will be protected and conserved on public land in order to compensate for removal of large valley oaks in the City.
There is one existing valley oak tree (approximately 5.5 foot dbh ) within the Project site. Therefore, mitigation is necessary to ensure impacts are less than significant. Incorporation of the City of Visalia Oak Tree Mitigation Policy (Mitigation Measure BIO-1) will reduce impacts to less than significant with mitigation.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact : The proposed project is not located within the boundaries of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan. There is no impact.
Mitigation Measures for Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Removal of the valley oak tree requires mitigation by paying a mitigation fee, or by performing in -kind mitigation, or by a combination of payment of mitigation fee and in- kind mitigation. Oak tree removal, and mitigation will be in accordance with the City of Visalia Oak Tree Mitigation Policy, pursuant to Visalia Municipal Code sections 12.24.037 and 12.24.110.
3-27
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Environmental Setting
A Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment was prepared by Taylored Archaeology in November 2020. The Assessment included a Cultural Resources Records Search, archival research, Native American outreach, and a pedestrian survey.
The records search results indicated that there are no cultural resources (prehistoric or historic) recorded within the Project APE and also that there are no cultural resources within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project APE. In addition, Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center staff also reported two prior investigations were conducted within the Project APE and three prior investigations were conducted within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project APE.
Archival research identified several structures within the vicinity of the project site, including a ditch along the western edge of N Shirk Rd and the along north side of west Riggin Avenue, a concrete culvert at the northwest corner of W Riggin Ave and N Shirk Rd, a wood pole distribution line, and a wood pole transmission line. It was determined that none of these structures met the eligibility criteria for NRHP under NHPA.
Taylored Archaeology conducted an archaeological pedestrian survey on November 7, 2020. No cultural resources were identified within the Project APE during the survey.
The Cultural Resources Assessment also included Native American Outreach, which will be discussed in greater depth in the Tribal Cultural Resources section of this Initial Study. The full Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment is available in Appendix C.
Regulatory Setting
National Historic Preservation Act: The National Historic Preservation Act was adopted in 1966 to preserve historic and archeological sites in the United States. The Act created the National Register of Historic Places, the list of National Historic Landmarks, and the State Historic Preservation offices.
California Historic Register: The California Historic Register was developed as a program to identify, evaluate, register, and protect Historical Resources in California. California Historical Landmarks are sites, 3-28
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 buildings, features, or events that are of statewide significance and have anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific, religious, experimental, or other value. In order for a resource to be designated as a historical landmark, it must meet the following criteria:
• The first, last, only, or most significant of its type in the state or within a large geographic region (Northern, Central, or Southern California).
• Associated with an individual or group having a profound influence on the history of California. • A prototype of, or an outstanding example of, a period, style, architectural movement or construction or is one of the more notable works or the best surviving work in a region of a pioneer architect, designer or master builder.
City of Visalia General Plan: The Open Space and Conservation Element of the City of Visalia General Plan includes the following objectives and policies pertaining to cultural and historic resources:
Objective OSC -O-11 Preserve and protect historic features and archaeological resources of the Visalia planning area including its agricultural surrounding for aesthetic, scientific, educational and cultural values.
OSC-P-39 Establish requirements to avoid potential impacts to sites suspected of being archeologically, paleontologically, or historically significant or of concern, by:
• Requiring a records review for development proposed in areas that are considered archaeologically or paleontologically sensitive;
• Determining the potential effects of development and construction on archaeological or paleontological resources (as required by CEQA);
• Requiring pre -construction surveys and monitoring during any ground disturbance for all development in areas of historical and archaeological sensitivity; and • Implementing appropriate measures to avoid the identified impacts, as conditions of approval.
Discussion
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in Section 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: A Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment was conducted in November 2020 for the proposed project. The Assessment included Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center records search, a Native American Heritage Comission Sacred Lands File search, archival research, and pedestrian survey. The Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment did not identify any historical or cultural resources within the project APE. The full Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment is available in Appendix C.
Based on the results of this Cultural Resources Assessment, no known historic resources are located within the project site. Although no historic resources were identified, the presence of remains or unanticipated cultural resources under the ground surface is possible. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 will ensure that impacts to this checklist item will be less than significant with mitigation incorporation.
3-29
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: There are no known archaeological resources located within the project area. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL -1 and CUL -2 will ensure that potential impact will be less than significant with mitigation incorporation.
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: There are no known human remains buried in the project vicinity. If human remains are unearthed during development, there is a potential for a significant impact. As s uch, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL -2 will ensure that impacts remain less than significant with mitigation incorporation.
Mitigation Measures for Impacts to Cultural Resources:
Mitigation Measure CUL -1: If cultural resources are encountered during ground -disturbing activities, work in the immediate area must halt and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (NPS 1983) should be contac ted immediately to evaluate the find. If the discovery proves to be significant under CEQA, additional work such as data recovery excavation and Native American consultation may be warranted to mitigate any adverse effects.
Mitigation Measure CUL -2: The discovery of human remains is always a possibility during ground disturbing activities. If human remains are found, the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the County Coroner must be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehisto ric, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a most likely descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.
3-30
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 VI. ENERGY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Environmental Setting
Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity services to the region. SCE serves approximately 15 million people throughout a 50,000 square-mile service area in central, coastal, and southern California.
SCE supplies electricity to its customers through a variety of renewable and nonrenewable sources. The Table 3-5 below shows the proportion of each energy resource sold to California consumers by SCE in 2017 as compared to the statewide average.
Fuel Type SCE Power Mix California Power
Mix
Coal 0% 4%
Large Hydroelectric 8% 15%
Natural Gas 20% 34%
Nuclear 6% 9%
Other (Oil/Petroleum Coke/Waste Heat) 0% <1%
Unspecified Sources of Power1 34% 9%
Eligible Renewables
Biomass 0% 2%
Geothermal 8% 4%
Small Hydro 1% 3%
Solar 13% 10%
Wind 10% 10%
Total Eligible Renewable 32% 29%
1. "Unspecified sources of power" means electricity from transactions that are not traceable to specific generation sources.
Table 3-5. 2017 SCE and State average power resources; Source: California Energy Commission
SCE also offers Green Rate Options, which allow consumers to indirectly purchase up to 100% of their energy from renewable sources. To accomplish this, SCE purchases the renewable energy necessary to meet the needs of Green Rate participants from solar renewable developers.
Southern California Gas (SoCalGas) Company provides natural gas services to the project area. Natural gas is an energy source developed from fossil fuels composed primarily of methane (CH4). Approximately 45% of the natural gas burned in California is used for electricity generation, while 21% is consumed by the residential sector, 25% is consumed by the industrial sector, and 9% is consumed by the commercial sector.
3-31
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 Regulatory Setting
California Code of Regulations, Title 20 and Title 24 : Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations establishes standards and requirements for appliance energy efficiency. The standards apply to a broad range of appliances sold in California. Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations is a broad set of standards designed to address the energy efficiency of new and altered homes and commercial buildings.
These standards regulate energy consumed for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting.
Title 24 requirements are enforced locally by the City of Visalia Building Department.
California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen): CalGreen is a mandatory green building code that sets minimum environmental standards for new buildings. It includes standards for volatile organic compound (VOC) emitting materials, water conservation, and construction waste recycling
Discussion
a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed Project involves widening of an existing road. During construction, energy use would be primarily attributed the electricity and fuel energy consumed by construction vehicles and equipment. Energy use associated with project construction was estimated using the Road Construction Emissions Model Version 9.0 (Appendix A) and EMFAC data. Energy use calculations are provided in Appendix E and summarized in Table 3-6, below.
Source Energy Use
Gallons MBTU
Off-Road Equipment Fuel (Diesel) 76,036 10,569
On-Road Vehicle Fuel (Gasoline) 16,859 1,957
On-Road Vehicle Fuel (Diesel) 629 87
Total Construction Energy Use 12,613
Average Annual Construction Energy Use 12,613
Table 3-6. Construction Related Energy Use. Source: Road Construction Emissions Model & EMFAC (See Appendix E)
Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards would provide guidance on construction techniques to maximize energy conservation. As such, it is anticipated that construction vehicle fuel energy wo uld not involve the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy.
During project operations, energy consumption would be minimal. Street lighting is proposed along the length of the proposed improvement area, which would result in some energy use. However, the City of Visalia Engineering Standards require new streetlights to utilize energy efficient LED luminaires.
Therefore, it is not anticipated that project operations would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy.
Because the proposed project will comply with all energy efficiency standards required under Title 24 of the California Building Code and City of Visalia Engineering Standards, it is presumed that the 3-32
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 project will not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. The impact is less than significant.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
No Impact: The proposed project will not conflict with or obstruct any state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The project will be designed to meet Title 24 and City of Visalia energy efficiency standards. Compliance with these standards will be enforced by the City of Visalia Building Division. There is no impact
Mitigation Measures for Energy
None Required
3-33
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication
42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct and indirect risks to life
or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
Environmental Setting
Geologic Stability and Seismic Activity
• Seismicity: Tulare County is considered to be a low to moderate earthquake hazard area. The San Andreas Fault is the longest and most significant fault zone in California and is approximately 40 miles west of the Tulare County Boundary. Owens Valley fault zone is the only active fault located within Tulare County. Section 5 of the 2017 Tulare Multi -Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the project site as likely to experience low to moderate shaking from earthquakes, and may experience higher levels if an earthquake were to occur in or near the County. Ground 3-34
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 shaking can result in other geological impacts, including liquefaction, landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse.
• Liquefaction: Liquefaction is a phenomenon whereby unconsolidated and/or near-saturated soils lose cohesion and are converted to a fluid state as a result of severe vibratory motion. The relatively rapid loss of soil shear strength during strong earthquake shaking results in temporary, fluid-like behavior of the soil, which can result in landslides and lateral spreading. No specific countywide assessment of liquefaction has been performed; however the 2017 Tulare Multi - Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the risk of liquefaction within the county as low because the soil types in the area either too coarse or too high in clay content to be suitable for liquefaction.
• Landslides: Landslides refer to a wide variety of processes that result in the downward and outward movement of soil, rock, and vegetation under gravitational influence. Landslides can be caused by both natural and human-induced changes in slope stability and often accompany other natural hazard events, such as floods, wildfire, or earthquake. Eastern portions of the County are considered to b e at a higher risk of landslides where steep slopes are present. However, the majority of the County, including the proposed project site, is considered to be at low risk of landslides and mudslides because of its flat topography. The 2017 Tulare Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan states that occurrence of landslide events within populated areas of Tulare County is unlikely.
• Subsidence: Land Subsidence refers to the vertical sinking of land as a result of either manmade or natural underground voids. Subsidence has occurred throughout the Central Valley at differing rates since the 1920’s as a result of groundwater, oil, and gas withdrawal. During drought years, Tulare County is prone to accelerated subsidence, with some areas sinking up to 28 feet. Although western portions of the County show signs of deep and shallow subsidence, the majority of the County, including the proposed project site, is not considered to be at risk of subsidence related hazards.
Soils Involved in Project: The proposed project involves construction on one soil type. The properties of this soil is described below:
• Grangeville Sandy Loam, drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes: The Grangeville series consists of very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils that formed in moderate coarse textured alluvium dominantly from granitic rock sources. These soils are somewhat poorly drained, negligible to very low runoff, and moderate to moderately rapid permeability. • Akers-Akers, saline-Sodic, complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes: The Akers series consists of very deep, well drained soils formed in alluvium derived from granitic rock. These soils have negligible runoff and Saline-sodic phases exhibit moderately slow permeability.
3-35
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021
Figure 3-4
3-36
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 Regulatory Setting
California Building Code: The California Building Code contains general building design and construction requirements relating to fire and life safety, structural safety, and access compliance. CBC provisions provide minimum standards to safeguard life or limb, health, property and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location and maintenance of all buildings and structures and certain equipment.
City of Visalia General Plan: The Safety and Noise Element of the City of Visalia General Plan includes the following objectives and policies regarding soils and geology that may be applicable to the proposed project.
Objective S-O- 1 Minimize risks of property damage and personal injury posed by geologic and seismic hazards.
S-P-2 Seismically retrofit or replace public works and/or emergency response facilities that are necessary during and/or immediately after a disaster or emergency.
Discussion
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Spe cial Publication 42.
Less than Significant Impact: According to the Tulare Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, no active faults underlay the project site. Although the project is located in an area of relatively low seismic activity, the project could be affected by ground shaking from nearby faults.
The potential for strong seismic ground shaking on the project site is not a significant environmental concern due to the infrequent seismic activity of the area and distance to the faults. The project has no potential to indirectly or directly cause the rupture of an earthquake fault. Therefore, the risk of loss, injury or death involving a rupture of a known earthquake fault would be less than significant.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
No Impact: According to the Tulare Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, the project site is located in an area of relatively low seismic activity. The proposed project does not include any activities or components which could feasibly cause strong seismic ground shaking, either directly or indirectly. There is no impact.
3-37
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
No Impact: No specific countywide assessment of liquefaction has been performed; however the Tulare Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the risk of liquefaction within the county as low because the soil types are unsuitable for liquefaction. There is no impact.
iv. Landslides?
No Impact: The proposed project site is generally flat and there are no hill slopes in the area. As a result, there is almost no potential for landslides. No geologic landforms exist on or near the site that would result in a landslide event. There is no impact.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less Than Significant Impact: Because the project site is relatively flat, the potential for erosion is low. However, construction-related activities and increased impermeable surfaces can increase the probability for erosion to occur. Construction -related impacts related to erosion will be temporary and subject to best management practices (BMPs) required by SWPPP, whic h are developed to prevent significant impacts related to erosion from construction . The project would extend stormwater collection lines along the length of the proposed improvements on Riggin Avenue.
Stormwater from the project site will be collected and coveyed to the basin located at the extensions of Ferguson and Kelsey . Because impacts related to erosion would be temporary and limited to construction, and because required best management practices would prevent significant impacts related to erosion, the impact will remain less than significant.
c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
No Impact: The soils associated with the project site are considered stable and have a low capacity for landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse . Because the project a rea is considered to be stable , and this project would not result in a substantial grade change to the topography to the point that it would increase the risk of landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse, there is no impact.
d) Would the project be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
No Impact: Expansive soils contain large amounts of clay, which absorb water and cause the soil to increase in volume. Conversely, the soils associated with the proposed project site have relatively low levels of clay Because the soils associated with the project are not suitable for expansion, implementation of the project will pose no direct or indirect risk to life or property caused by expansive soils and there is no impact.
3-38
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
No Impact: No wastewater will be generated as a part of the proposed project. There is no impact.
f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less Than Significant Impact: There are no unique geologic features and no known paleontological resources located within the project area and no excavation is proposed in undisturbed soils, particularly to a depth with a potential to unearth paleontological resources . Potential impacts resulting from project implementation would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures for Soils and Geology
None Required
3-39
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment.
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Environmental Setting
Natural processes and human activities emit greenhouse gases. The presence of GHGs in the atmosphere affects the earth’s temperature. Without the natural heat- trapping effect of GHGs, the earth’s surface would be about 34ºC cooler. However, it is believed that emissions from human activities, such as electricity production and vehicle use, have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere beyond the level of naturally occurring concentrations.
The effect of greenhouse gasses on earth’s temperature is equivalent to the way a greenhouse retains heat. Common GHGs include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, chlorofluorocarbons, hydro chlorofluorocarbons, and hydro fluorocarbons, per fluorocarbons, sulfur and hexafluoride. Some gases are more effective than others. The Global Warming Potential (GWP) has been calculated for each greenhouse gas to reflect how long it remains in the atmosphere, on average, and how strongly it absorbs energy. Gases with a higher GWP absorb more energy, per pound, than gases with a lower GWP, and thus contribute more to global warming. For example, one pound of methane is equivalent to twenty-one pounds of carbon dioxide.
GHGs as defined by AB 32 include the following gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. GHGs as defined by AB 32 are summarized in Table 3-7 . Each gas's effect on climate change depends on three main factors. The first being the quantity of these gases are in the atmosphere, followed by how long they stay in the atmosphere and finally how strongly they impact global temperatures.
Greenhouse
Gas
Description and Physical
Properties Lifetime GWP Sources
Methane
(CH4)
Is a flammable gas and is the
main component of natural gas
12 years
21 Emitted during the production and
transport of coal, natural gas, and oil.
Methane emissions also result from
livestock and other agricultural
practices and by the decay of organic
waste in municipal solid waste landfills.
3-40
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 Greenhouse
Gas
Description and Physical
Properties Lifetime GWP Sources
Carbon
dioxide (CO2)
An odorless, colorless, natural
greenhouse gas.
30-95
years
1 Enters the atmosphere through burning
fossil fuels (coal, natural gas and oil),
solid waste, trees and wood products,
and also as a result of certain chemical
reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement).
Carbon dioxide is removed from the
atmosphere (or "sequestered") when it
is absorbed by plants as part of the
biological carbon cycle.
Chloro-
fluorocarbons
Gases formed synthetically by
replacing all hydrogen atoms in
methane or ethane with
chlorine and/or fluorine atoms.
They are non-toxic
nonflammable, insoluble and
chemically unreactive in the
troposphere (the level of air at
the earth’s surface).
55-140
years
3,800
to
8,100
Were synthesized in 1928 for use as
refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and
cleaning solvents. They destroy
stratospheric ozone.
Hydro-
fluorocarbons
A man-made greenhouse gas.
It was developed to replace
ozone-depleting gases found in
a variety of appliances.
Composed of a group of
greenhouse gases containing
carbon, chlorine an at least one
hydrogen atom.
14 years
140
to
11,70
0 Powerful greenhouse gases that are
emitted from a variety of industrial
processes. Fluorinated gases are
sometimes used as substitutes for
stratospheric ozone-depleting
substances. These gases are typically
emitted in smaller quantities, but
because they are potent greenhouse
gases.
Nitrous oxide
(N2O)
Commonly known as laughing
gas, is a chemical compound
with the formula N2O. It is an
oxide of nitrogen. At room
temperature, it is a colorless,
non-flammable gas, with a
slightly sweet odor and taste. It
is used in surgery and dentistry
for its anesthetic and analgesic
effects.
120
years
310
Emitted during agricultural and
industrial activities, as well as during
combustion of fossil fuels and solid
waste.
Pre-
fluorocarbons
Has a stable molecular
structure and only breaks
down by ultraviolet rays about
60 kilometers above Earth’s
surface.
50,000
years
6,500
to
9,200
Two main sources of pre-fluorocarbons
are primary aluminum production and
semiconductor manufacturing.
Sulfur
hexafluoride
An inorganic, odorless,
colorless, and nontoxic
nonflammable gas.
3,200
years
23,90
0 This gas is manmade and used for
insulation in electric power transmission
equipment, in the magnesium industry,
in semiconductor manufacturing and as
a tracer gas.
Table 3-7. Greenhouse Gasses; Source: EPA, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
3-41
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 In regards to the quantity of these gases are in the atmosphere, we first must establish the amount of particular gas in the air, known as Concentration, or abundance, which are measured in parts per million, parts per billion and even parts per trillion. To put these measurements in more relatable terms, one part per million is equivalent to one drop of water diluted into about 13 gallons of water, roughly a full tank of gas in a compact car. Therefore, it can be assumed larger emission of greenhouse gases lead to a higher concentration in the atmosphere.
Each of the designated gases described above can reside in the atmosphere for different amounts of time, ranging from a few years to thousands of years. All of these gases remain in the atmosphere long enough to become well mixed, meaning that the amount that is measured in the atmosphere is roughly the same all over the world regardless of the source of the emission.
Regulatory Setting
AB 32: AB 32 set the 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal into law. It directed the California Air Resources Board to begin developing discrete early actions to reduce greenhouse gases while also preparing a scoping plan to identify how best to reach the 2020 limit. The reduction measures to meet the 2020 target are to be adopted by the start of 2011.
SB 1078, SB 107 and Executive Order S -14-08: SB 1078, SB 107, and Executive Order S -14-08 require California to generate 20% of its electricity from renewable energy by 2017. SB 107 then changes the 2017 deadline to 2010. Executive Order S-14-08 required that all retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020.
Discussion
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
Less Than Significant Impact: Greenhouse gas emissions for the construction of the proposed project were modeled using the Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 9.0.0. The Emissions Model results can be found in Appendix A.
Construction: Greenhouse gasses would be generated during construction from activities including grubbing/land clearing, grading/excavation, drainage/utilities/sub -grade, and paving. The Road Construction Emissions Model report predicts that this project will create a maximum of 854 .44 MT of CO2e emissions during construction. Because the SJVAPCD does not have numeric thresholds for assessing the significance of construction -related GHG emissions, predicted emissions from project construction were compared to Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) thresholds for construction related GHG emissions. The CEQ currently has a presumptive threshold of 10,000 metric tons of CO2e per year for construction emissions amortized over a 30 -year project lifetime. Because project construction would generate far less GHG emissions than this threshold, impacts related to GHG emissions during project construction would be less than significant.
Operation: As discussed in the Air Quality section of this Initial Study, the Project is being implemented in response to existing and planned growth in the area. Riggin Avenue is identified as a future arterial in the City of Visalia General Plan. The Project itself will improve roadway operations but would not generate additional vehicle trips beyond what was planned for an analyzed in the City’s 3-42
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 General Plan EIR. Therefore, the project is not considered to be growth inducing and would not increase mobile source greenhouse gas emissions beyond what was previously analyzed in the City’s General Plan EIR.
Because construction of the project will result in less than significant increases in GHG emissions, and operation of the project would not increase GHG emissions beyond those already analyzed in the City’s General Plan EIR, the impact is less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No Impact: The proposed project will comply with all Federal, State, and Local rules pertaining to the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the project will implement Best Performance Standards developed by the SJVAPCD. Projects implementing B est Performance Standards are determined to have a less than significant impact on global climate change. The project will not conflict with any plan, policy, or regulation developed to reduce GHG emissions. There is no impact.
Mitigation Measures for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
None Required
3-43
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard or
excessive noise to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Environmental Setting
The proposed project site is located approximately 0. 89 miles west of the nearest school (Ridgeview Middle School), 6.9 miles southwest of the nearest private airstrip (Gilbert Aviation Heliport – CA83), and
2.2 miles northeast of the nearest public airport (Visalia Municipal Airport).
The Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC’s) Envirostor was used to identify any sites known to be associated with releases of hazardous materials or wastes within the project area. This research confirmed that the project would not be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
3-44
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021
Figure 3-5
3-45
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021
Regulatory Setting
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] §9601 et seq.). The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or the Superfund Act) authorizes the President to respond to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances into the environment.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets and enforces Occupational Safety and Health Standards to assure safe working conditions.
OSHA provides training, outreach, education, and compliance assistance to promote safe workplaces. The proposed Project would be subject to OSHA requirements during construction, operation, and maintenance.
Toxic Substances Co ntrol Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C. §2601 et seq.). The Toxic Substance Control Act was enacted by Congress in 1976 and authorizes the EPA to regulate any chemical substances determined to cause an unreasonable risk to public health or the environment.
Hazardous Waste Control Law, Title 26. The Hazardous Waste Control Law creates hazardous waste management program requirements. The law is implemented by regulations contained in Title 26 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), which contains requirements for the following aspects of hazardous waste management:
• Identification and classification;
• Generation and transportation;
• Design and permitting of recycling, treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; • Treatment standards;
• Operation of facilities and staff training; and
• Closure of facilities and liability requirements.
California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Chapter 11. Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations contains regulations for the identification and classification of hazardous wastes. The CCR defines a waste as hazardous if it has any of the following characteristics: ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and/or toxicity.
California Emergency Services Act. The California Emergency Services Act created a multi- agency emergency response pla n for the state of California. The Act coordinates various agencies, including CalEPA, Caltrans, the California Highway Patrol, regional water quality control boards, air quality management districts, and county disaster response offices.
Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law of 1985. Pursuant to the Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law of 1985, local agencies are required to develop “area plans” for response to releases of hazardous materials and wastes. Tulare County maintains a Hazardous Material Incident Response Plan to coordinate emergency response agencies for incidents and requires the submittal of business plans by persons who handle hazardous materials.
3-46
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 City of Visalia General Plan: The Safety and Noise Element of the City of Visalia General Plan includes the following objectives and policies pertaining to hazards and hazardous materials potentially applicable to the proposed project:
Objective S-O-3: Protect soils, surface water, and groundwater from contamination from hazardous material.
S-P-19 Coordinate with the Tulare County Envi - ronmental Health Division and other appropriate regulatory agencies during the review process of all proposals for the use of hazardous materials or those involving properties that may have toxic contamination, such as petroleum hydrocarbons, CAM 17 metals, asbestos, and lead.
Discussion
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant Impact: Once constructed, the Project itself will not contain, use, or produce any hazardous materials. Project construction activities may involve the use and transport of hazardous materials, such as fuels, oils, and other chemicals (e.g., pains, lead, adhesives, etc.) typically used during construction. Improper use, transportation, and storage of hazardous materials could result in accidental releases or spills that could pose health risks to workers, the public, and the environment.
However, all materials used during construction would be contained, stored, and handled in compliance with all applicable standards and regulations established by DTSC, the EPA, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). In addition, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for the project and will include emergency procedures for incidental hazardous materials releases. The SWPPP also includes Best Management Practices which include requirements for hazardous materials storage. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.
b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact: There is no reasonably foreseeable condition or incident involving the project that could result in release of hazardous materials into the environment , other than any potential accidental releases of standard fuels, solvents, or chemicals encountered during typical construction. Should an accidental hazardous release occur or should the project encounter hazardous soils, existing regulations for handling hazardous materials require coordination with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control for an appropriate plan of action, which can include studies or testing to determine the nature and extent of contamination, as well as handling and proper disposal. Therefore, potential impacts are considered to be less than significant.
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No Impact: The project is located approximately 0.89 miles from the nearest school. There is no impact.
3-47
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact: The project site is not listed as a hazardous materials site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and is not included on a list compiled by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). The project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment and there is no impact.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact: The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan and is not within two miles of a public airport. Visalia Municipal Airport is the nearest public airport to the project site and is located approximately 2.2 miles away. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. There is no impact.
f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact: The City’s site plan review procedures ensure compliance with emergency response and evacuation plans. In addition, the site plan will be reviewed by the Fire Department per standard City procedure to ensure consistency with emergency response and evacuation needs. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on emergency evacuation.
g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact: The land surrounding the project site is developed with urban, suburban, and agricultural uses and are not considered to be wildlands. Additionally, the 2017 Tulare County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan finds that fire hazards within the City of Visalia, including the proposed project site, have low frequency, limited extent, limited magnitude, and low significance. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires and there is no impact.
Mitigation Measures for Hazards and Hazardous Materials
None Required
3-48
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise sustainably
degrade surface or ground water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner, which
would:
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?
(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite?
(iii) create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff; or
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones risk the release of pollutants due to project inundation? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater movement plan?
Environmental Setting
Hydrologic System: The proposed project site is located in the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region, which covers 10.9 million acres south of the San Joaquin River. The proposed project site lies within the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. The San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin is divided into seven sub - basins. The proposed project site is located within the Kaweah Subbasin. The subbasin lies between the Kings Groundwater Subbasin on the north, the Tule Groundwater Subbasin on the south, the Tulare Lake subbasin on the west, and crystalline bedrock of the Sierra Nevada foothills on the east. The area is comprised mostly of lands in the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District. Major rivers in the subbasin include the St. Johns and lower Kaweah Rivers; although the Kaweah River is considered the primary surface water source for groundwater recharge.
Groundwater: California Water Service Visalia District provides water services within the City of Visalia.
The Visalia District also serves the communities of Goshen, Mullen and Tulco. California Water Service operates 72 wells to meet the water demands of Visalia and Goshen customers.
3-49
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 Surface Waters: The Planning Area is located in the heart of the Kaweah River’s delta system, so many rivers and creeks flow through the city. Surface runoff generally flows from east to west and terminates in the Tulare Lake Basin. Major surface water resources in the area include St. Johns River, Mill Creek, Packwood Creek, Cameron Creek, Deep Creek, Evans Creek, Modoc Ditch, Mill Creek Ditch, Persian Ditch, Tulare Irrigation District (TID) Canal, and some other local Ditches. None of the City’s potable water is supplied through surface water.
Regulatory Setting
Clean Water Act: The Clean Water Act (CWA) is enforced by the U.S. EPA and was developed in 1972 to regulate discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States. The Act made it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters unless a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit is obtained.
Central Valley RWQCB: The proposed project site is within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Central Valley RWQCB requires a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for projects disturbing more than one acre of total land area. Because the project is greater than one acre, a NPDES Permit and SWPPP will be required.
City of Visalia General Plan: The Open Space and Conservation Element of the City of Visalia General Plan contains the following goals and policies related to water resources that may be applicable to the proposed project:
Objective OSC -O-6: Protect water resources vital to the health of the community’s residents and important to the Planning Area’s ecological and economic stability
Objective OSC-O-7: Preserve and enhance Planning Area waterways and adjacent corridors as valuable community resources which serve as plant and wildlife habitats, as groundwater recharge facilities, as flood control and irrigation components, and as connections between open space areas.
Discussion
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant Impact: The project will result in less than significant impacts to water quality due to potentially polluted runoff generated during construction activities. Construction would include excavation, grading, and other earthwork that may occur across most of the 14.0-acre project site. During storm events, exposed construction areas across the project site may cause runoff to carry pollutants, such as chemicals, oils, sediment, and debris. However, i mplementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required for the project. A SWPPP identifies all potential sources of pollution that could affect stormwater discharges from the project site and identifies best management practices (BMPs) related to stormwater runoff. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant.
3-50
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
No Impact: The proposed Project, once operational, will not require on -going use of water and therefore would not affect an aquifer or local water table. Therefore, the Project will have no impact.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner, which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Less than Significant Impact: The proposed Project includes installation of additional impervious surfaces that may be considered an alteration of existing drainage patterns, however, this would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be implemented during project construction. SWPPPs include mandated erosion control measures, which are developed to prevent significant impacts related to erosion caused by runoff during construction. During project operations, stormwater on the existing and proposed impervious surfaces would be collected and conveyed to an existing basin located at the extensions of Ferguson and Kelsey. The impact is less than significant.
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
Less than Significant Impact: Because the project would result in an increase of impervious surfaces, an increase in surface runoff may occur. However, the project proposed to extend stormwater lines along the length of the improvement area. These lines would be used to convey stormwater from the existing and proposed imp ervious surfaces to an existing basin located at the extensions of Ferguson and KelseyThe project has been reviewed by the City of Visalia Public Works Director and the City’s Engineer who have determined that the implementation of the proposed Project will not result in substantial flooding on- or off-site. The project will have a less than significant impact.
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Less than Significant Impact: The Project proposes to widen an existing road, which will add new impervious surfaces to the project area. The project includes an extension of stormwater collection lines along the length of the project site to accommodate the increase in runoff.
Stormwater on the existing and proposed impervious surfaces would be collected and conveyed to an existing basin located at the extensions of Ferguson and Kelsey, which has adequate capacity to accommodate increased flows resulting from the proposed project. The impact is less than significant.
3-51
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact: The Project site is generally flat and no significant grading or leveling will be required.
The proposed project site is not in proximity to a stream or river and will not alter the course of a stream or river. According to National Flood Hazard mapping by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the proposed project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area.
There would be no impact with regard to impeding or redirecting flood flows.
d) Would the project, in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk the release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No Impact: The proposed project is located inland and not near an ocean or large body of water, and therefore, would not be affected by a tsunami. The proposed project is located in a relatively flat area and would not be impacted by inundation related to mudflow. Since the project is located in an area that is not susceptible to inundation, the project would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation. As such, there is no impact.
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No Impact: The proposed project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan. The proposed project will be subject to the requirements of the NPDES Stormwater Program and will be required to comply with a SWPPP, which will identify all potential sources of pollution that could affect stormwater discharges from the project site and identify BMPs to prevent significant impacts related to stormwater runoff.
The proposed project site is within the jurisdiction of the Mid-Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA). The Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) was adopted by the Mid -Kaweah GSA in December 2019. The plan was reviewed for consistency with the proposed project and it was determined that the proposed project does not conflict with and would not obstruct implementation of the GSP. There is no impact.
Mitigation Measures for Hydrology and Water Quality
None Required
3-52
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community? b) Cause a significant environmental impact due
to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
Environmental Setting
The proposed project site is located with the northern portion of the City of Visalia and would effect approximately 14 acres within the City/County Right of Way. This segment of Riggin Avenue is in an area designated by the City’s General Plan as Industri al. The area south of the project is zoned County/Industrial. Properties west of the project site are zoned Industrial and properties east of the project site are zoned County/Multi -Family Residential. Zoning and General Plan Land Use maps are shown in Figures 3-6 and 3-7.
Regulatory Setting
City of Visalia General Plan: The Circulation element designates this segment of Riggin Avenue as a future arterial.
3-53
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 Figure 3-6
3-54
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021
Figure 3-7
3-55
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 Discussion
a) Would the project physically divide an established community?
No Impact: The project proposes the reconstruction of 1 mile of existing roadway between Kelsey Street and Shirk Street to accommodate a 4 -lane arterial street with 110’ total ROW. The project would not act as a physical barrier within a community. There is no impact.
b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
No Impact : The proposed project does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. There is no impact.
Mitigation Measures for Land Use and Planning
None Required
3-56
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other lands use plan?
Environmental Setting
There are no mineral resource zones in Tulare County and there is no mineral extraction occurring on or adjacent to the proposed project site. Historical mines within the County include mineral deposits of tungsten, copper, gold, magnesium and lead, however most of these mines are now closed – leaving only 37 active mining operations. There are no active mining operations within the City of Visalia.
Regulatory Setting
California State Surface Mining and Reclamation Act : The California State Surface Mining and Reclamation Act was adopted in 1975 to regulate surface mining to prevent adverse environmental impacts and to preserve the state’s mineral resources. The Act is enforced by the California Department of Conservation’s Division of Mine Reclamation.
City of Visalia General Plan: The following objectives and policies in the Open Space and Conservation Element of the City of Visalia General Plan are intended to protect mineral resources within the City.
Objective OSC-O-9 Protect agricultural land from premature urban development.
OSC-P-24 To allow efficient cultivation, pest control and harvesting methods, require buffers and transition areas between urban development and adjoining or nearby agricultural land.
OSC-P-25 Require new development to implement measures, as appropriate, to minimize soil erosion related to grading, site preparation, landscaping and construction.
3-57
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 Discussion
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b)
No Impact: The project site has no known mineral resources that would be of a value to the re gion and the residents of the state, therefore the proposed project would not result in the loss of impede the mining of regionally or locally important mineral resources. There is no impact.
c) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other lands use plan?
No Impact: There are no known mineral resources of importance to the region and the project site is not designated under the City’s or County’s General Plan as an important mineral resource recovery site. For that reason, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of known regionally or locally important mineral resources. There is no impact.
Mitigation Measures for Mineral Resources
None Required
3-58
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 XIII. NOISE
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permeant increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Generation of excessive ground-borne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or, an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Environmental Setting
Noise is often described as unwanted sound. Sound is the variation in air pressure that the human ear can detect. If the pressure variations occur at least 20 times per second, they can be detected by the human ear. The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound, and is expressed as cycles per second, called Hertz (Hz). Ambient noise is the “background” noise of an environment. Ambient noise levels on the proposed project site are primarily due to agricultural activities and traffic.
Construction activities usually result in an increase in sound above ambient noise levels.
Regulatory Setting
City of Visalia General Plan: The Safety and Noise Element of the City of Visalia General Plan is responsible for establishing noise standards within the City and includes the following objectives and policies related to noise that may be applicable to the project.
Objective N-O-1: Strive to achieve an acceptable noise environment for present and future residents of Visalia.
Objective N-O-3: Protect noise sensitive land uses such as schools, hospitals, and senior care facilities from encroachment of and exposure to excessive levels of noise.
N-P-4 Where new development of industrial, commercial or other noise generating land uses (including roadways, railroads, and airports) may result in noise levels that exceed the noise level exposure criteria established by Tables 8-2 and 8-3, require a noise study to determine impacts, and require developers to mitigate these impacts in conformance with Tables 8-2 and 8-3 as a condition 3-59
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 of permit approval through appropriate means. Noise mitigation measures may include but are not limited to:
• Screen and control noise sources, such as parking and loading facilities, outdoor activities, and mechanical equipment;
• Increase setbacks for noise sources from adjacent dwellings; • Retain fences, walls, and landscaping that serve as noise buffers; • Use soundproofing materials and doubleglazed windows; • Use open space, building orientation and design, landscaping and running water to mask sounds; and
• Control hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup, to minimize noise impacts.
• Alternative acoustical designs that achieve the prescribed noise level reduction may be approved, provided a qualified Acoustical Consultant submits information demonstrating that the alternative designs will achieve and maintain the specific targets for outdoor activity areas and interior spaces. As a last resort, developers may propose to construct noise walls along state highways and arterials when compatible with aesthetic concerns and neighborhood char - acter. This would be a developer responsibility, with no City funding.
Discussion
a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permeant increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less than Significant Impact: Project construction is anticipated to last approximately 6 months and will involve temporary noise sources. The average noise levels generated by construction equipment that will be used in the proposed project are shown below.
Type of Equipment dBA at 50 feet
Air Compressors 81
Excavators 81
Concrete/Industrial Saws 76
Cranes 83
Forklifts 75
Generators 81
Pavers 89
Rollers 74
Dozers 85
Tractors 84
Loaders 85
Backhoes 80
Graders 85
Scrapers 89
Welders 74
Table 3 -8. Noise levels of noise -generating construction equipment .
Source: Federal Highway Administration Construction Noise Handbook. 3-60
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021
The City of Visalia General Plan and Noise Ordinance does not identify noise thresholds for noise sources related to construction, however the City’s Noise Ordinance does limit noise generating activities related to construction to daytime hours Monday through Friday . The project will comply with these regulations and construction will only occur Monday through Frida between 6:00 AM and 7:00 PM.
The project itself will not generate long term noise levels. The Project is being implemented in response to existing and planned growth in the area. The project itself will improve local roadway operations, but will not generate additional vehicle trips on Riggin Avenue beyond what was already planned for and analyzed in the City’s General Plan EIR. The Project is therefore not considered to be growth inducing and will not result in noise impacts beyond what was previously analyzed in the City’s General Plan EIR.
According to the City’s General Plan, major noise sources in Visalia are related to roadways, vehicle traffic, and railroad noises. According to the City’s General Plan EIR, Riggin Avenue (from Road 80 to Shirk Street) is projected to produce traffic noise levels of 71.0 Ldn (day -night average sound level) at 50 feet at full buildout of the General Plan in Year 2030. As such, the Project site is included in the City’s Future Noise Contours. When future development projects are proposed in areas within the City’s Noise Contours, such developments may require sound attenuation measures such as noise barriers.
Because noise generated from construction would be tempora ry, construction activities would comply with all measures established by the City to limit construction related noise impacts, and operational noise would be consistent with what was previously analyzed in the City’s General Plan EIR, the impact is less than significant.
b) Would the project result in generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less than Significant Impact: Ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels may occur as part of construction activities associated with the project. Construction activities will be temporary and will not expose persons to such vibration or noise levels for an extended period of time. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or, an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact : The project site is located approximately 2.2 miles from Visalia Municipal Airport.
However, The Project consists of a road widening and does not include any above ground structures (other than standards street lighting). The Project will not conflict with any adopted airport land use plans or expose people to excessive airport noise. There is no impact.
Mitigation Measures for Noise
None Required
3-61
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for example,
by new homes and businesses) or indirectly
(for example, through extension of roads or
other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Environmental Setting
The United States Census Bureau estimated the population in the City of Visalia to be 133,800 in 2018.
This is an increase from the 2010 census, which counted the population in the City of Visalia to be 124,867.
Factors that influence population growth include job availability, housing availability, and the capacity of existing infrastructure.
Regulatory Setting
The size of the population in the City of Visalia is controlled by the development code and Land Use Element of the General Plan. These documents regulate the number of dwelling units per acre allowed on various land uses and establish minimum and maximum lot sizes. These factors have a direct impact on the City’s population size. The project site is located entirely within the public ROW. Theref ore, no residences are permitted within the project area.
Discussion
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by new homes and businesses) or directly (for example, through extension of r oads or other infrastructure)?
No Impact: The project does not propose any new homes and there are no residential structures currently on-site. The Project is being implemented in response to existing and planned growth in the Area. The Project itself will improve local roadway operations but would not generate additional vehicle trips on Riggin Avenue beyond what was already planned for and analyzed in the City’s General Plan EIR. The Project is therefore not considered to be growth inducing. The proposed Project will not affect any regional population, housing, or employment projections anticipated by City of Visalia policy documents. Therefore, there is no impact.
3-62
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact: There project does not involve the removal of existing residences and would not displace any people. There is no impact.
Mitigation Measures for Population and Housing
None Required
3-63
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable serve ratios, response times
of other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks?
e. Other public facilities?
Environmental Setting
Fire: The project site is served by the City of Visalia Fire Department. The City of Visalia Fire Department will continue to provide fire protection services to the proposed project site upon development.
Police: Law enforcement services are provided to the project site via the Visalia Police Department. The City of Visalia will continue to provide police protection services to the proposed project site upon development.
Schools: The proposed project site is located within Visalia Unified School District.
Discussion
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable serve ratios, response times of other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a. Fire protection?
No Impact: The City of Visalia Fire Department will continue to provide fire protection services within the project site. No additional fire personnel or equipment is anticipated, as the site is already served by the Fire Station. There is no impact.
3-64
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 b. Police protection?
No Impact: The proposed Project will continue to be served by the City’s Police Department. No additional police personnel or equipment is anticipated. There is no impact.
c. Schools?
No Impact: The proposed project does not contain any residential uses, which are typically associated with an increased demand for schools. The project would not increase the population within the City of Visalia and would therefore not result in increased demand upon School District resources. There is no impact
d. Parks?
No Impact: The proposed Project would not result in an increase in demand for parks or other recreation facilities because it would not cause an increase in population. There is no impact.
e. Other public facilities?
No Impact: The proposed Project is not growth inducing and is within the land use and growth projections identified in the City’s General Plan. The Project would not result in increased demand for, or impacts on, other public facilities. There is no impact.
Mitigation Measures for Public Services
None Required
3-65
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 XVI. PARKS AND RECREATION
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Environmental Setting
The City of Visalia owns and operates 23 parks within the City limits. Lions Neighborhood Park is the closest recreational area to the project site and is located approximately 0.35 miles southeast of the project site.
Regulatory Setting
City of Visalia General Plan: The Parks, Schools, Community Facilities, and Utilities Element of the City of Visalia General Plan identifies existing and planned parks, trails and recreation facilities within the City’s planning area. No existing or planned recreational facilities are present within the Project site.
Discussion
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
No Impact: The proposed project does not contain any features that would increase the use of existing neighborhood parks, regional parks, or other recreational facilities. There is no impact.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No Impact: The proposed project does not include any recreational facilities and would not necessitate the construction or expansion of additional recreational facilities. There is no impact
Mitigation Measures for Parks and Recreation
None Required
3-66
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 XVII. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with the CEQA
guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (B)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Discussion for this section originates from the VMT Technical Memorandum prepared for this project by TJKM. The full Technical Memorandum can be found in Appendix D of this Initial Study.
Environmental Setting
Vehicular Access: The proposed project involves the reconstruction of one mile of existing roadway on Riggin Avenue between Kelsey Street and Shirk Street. Vehicular access to the project is available from Kelsey Street and Shirk Street, and from Riggin Avenue to the east and west of the project site.
Parking: During construction, workers will utilize a temporary construction easement located adjacent to the project site for parking and equipment staging. During project operations, there will be no permanent personnel on-site and no additional parking facilities will be required.
Pedestrian and Cyclist Connectivity : The project will install 6’ Class 2 bicycle lanes along both sides of Riggin Avenue as part of the proposed improvements. These bicycle lanes will connect to planned Class 2 bicycle lanes along Riggin Avenue on either side of the proposed project site.
Regulatory Setting
City of Visalia Improvement Standards: The City of Visalia’s Improvement Standards are developed and enforced by the City of Visalia’s Engineering Division to guide the development and maintenance of City Roads. The cross section drawings contained in the City Improvement Standards dictate the development of roads within the City.
City of Visalia General Plan: Riggin Avenue is classified as a future arterial in the Circulation Element of the City of Visalia General Plan.
3-67
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 Discussion
a) Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project involves the reconstruction of one mile of existing roadway between Kelsey Street and Shirk Street to accommodate a four -lane arterial street as envisioned by the Buildout Circulation Network described in the Visalia General Plan. Improvements would include new 12’ vehicular travel lanes (4 lanes total), new Class II bike lanes, new street lighting, new landscaped medians, a new bus turnout, new fire hyd rants, new sewer line, new traffic signal, and curb returns at all involved intersections. The proposed project site is located partially within the City of Visalia and partially within unincorporated Tulare County (within the Visalia General Plan planning area boundaries). The proposed project is consistent with the Visalia General Plan, and is not anticipated to conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. A project’s effect on automobile delay, typically measured based on “level of service” (LOS) would not constitute a significant environmental impact under the CEQA Guidelines effective July 1, 2020. This impact is less than significant.
b) Would the project c onflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b)?
Less t han Significant Impact : TJKM utilized the Tulare Council of Governments (Tulare COG) Travel Demand Model to forecast the net change in total VMT for Tulare County, with and without the proposed project. Table T -2 shows the model results under Existing plus Project conditions, and Table T -3 shows the model forecast under Cumulative (Year 2042) Conditions, with and without the proposed project. As shown: based on the travel demand model, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in a net increase in total VMT. In addition, TJKM pulled out total number of trips from the model with and without project. The number of trips did not increase between the with and without project model runs in both the base and cumulative conditions.
The City of Visalia’s VMT guidelines stipulated a study on induced demand for roadway expansion projects.
The following are from the guidelines on how to estimate induced VMT impacts from roadway expansion projects (UC Davis Induced Travel Calculator NCST Method):
1. Determine total lane-miles over an area that fully captures travel behavior changes resulting from the project (generally the region, but for projects affecting interregional travel look at all affected regions).
2. Determine the percentage change in total lane miles that will result from the project.
3. Determine the total existing VMT over that same area.
4. Multiply the percentage increase n lane miles by the existing VMT, and then multiply that by the elasticity from the induced travel literature:
[% increase in lane miles] x [existing VMT] x [elasticity] = [VMT resulting from the project]
While the travel demand model forecasted no growth in VMT, TJKM used the above formula to calculate induced VMT from the Riggins project.
3-68
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 % increase in lane miles = 1 / 10,756 = 0.009% (The project widens 1 mile of Riggins avenue, and 10,756 miles are the total lane miles in Tulare County from the TCAG model).
Existing VMT = 15,164,825 (The existing VMT of the region pulled from the TCAG Model)
Elasticity = 1 (The elasticity value was pulled from the transportation analysis guidelines).
Putting the three values together generates an induced daily VMT of 1,410 for the Riggins Widening. As a percentage of the existing VMT, this value is statistically insignificant (1,410/15,164,825 =0.009%).
As described in Section 15064.3: “Vehicle miles traveled” refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel “attributable to a project.” As described separately in the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Governor’s Office of Planning & Research, December 2018), VMT re - routed from other origins or destinations as the result of a project would not be attributable to a project except to the extent that the re-routing results in a net increase in VMT. A roadway widening could result in a net increase in total VMT if the roadway is currently operating at capacity, in which case the added capacity provided by a road widening could result in added VMT due to latent demand. However, this is not the case for the proposed project. The Visalia General Plan EIR (2010) noted that Riggin Avenue served approximately 7,800 daily vehicles, well below the estimated capacity of more than 15,000 daily vehicles for the existing 2 -lane configuration. Additionally, excess capacity is also currently provided on parallel routes such as State Route 198, further reducing the likelihood that the proposed project would result in a net increase in total VMT. Riggin Avenue also provides a direct connection to Highwa y 99 via Betty Drive, which could VMT for some trips that would otherwise travel on State Route 198.
Even though the calculation resulted in an increase of 1,410 VMT, it is highly unlikely there will be excess demand from a 1 mile widening due to excess capacity available from the routes mentioned in the above paragraph.
In addition, the guidelines states the induced VMT growth stems from induced land use; the Visalia general plan does not include any additional residential or commercial land uses in the Riggins / Shirk area for the project lifespan. It is highly unlikely the widening will induce demand since additional capacity exists and no additional land uses are planned for the area.
Since the induced VMT for this project is statistically 0, TJKM finds that VMT impacts associated with the proposed project are less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Tables 3-9 through 3-12 show VMT outputs from the TCAG model for the base scenario and future scenario with and without project conditions.
Scenario Total VMT
(Tulare County Model Area)
Existing Conditions 15,164,825
Existing plus Project Conditions 15,164,825
Net VMT with Proposed Project 0
VMT Impact Finding (Existing plus Project Conditions) Less Than Significant Table 3-9. VMT Forecast: Existing Plus Project Conditions. Source: TJKM; Tulare COG Travel Demand Model (Year 2020 Base Year), September 2020
3-69
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 Scenario Total VMT
(Tulare County Model Area)
2042 Model Forecast Year (without Riggin Avenue widening) 17,164,139 2042 Model Forecast Year (with Riggin Avenue widening) 17,164,139 Net VMT with Proposed Project 0
VMT Impact Finding (Cumulative Conditions) Less Than Significant Table 3-10. VMT Forecast: Cumulative Conditions. Source: TJKM; Tulare COG Travel Demand Model (Year 2042 Forecast)), September 2020
Scenario Total Trips
(Tulare County Model Area)
Existing Conditions 1,295,032
Existing plus Project Conditions 1,295,032
Net Trips with Proposed Project 0
VMT Impact Finding (Existing plus Project Conditions) Less Than Significant Table 3 -11. Total Project Trips Forecast: Existing plus Project Conditions. Source: TJKM; Tulare COG Travel Demand Model (Year 2020 Base Year Forecast), September 2020
Scenario Total Trips
(Tulare County Model Area)
2042 Model Forecast Year (without Riggin Avenue widening) 1,459,536 2042 Model Forecast Year (with Riggin Avenue widening) 1,459,536 Net VMT with Proposed Project 0
VMT Impact Finding (Cumulative Conditions) Less Than Significant Table 3-12. Total Project Trips Forecast: Cumulative Conditions. Source: TJKM; Tulare COG Travel Demand Model (Year 2042 Forecast), September 2020
The Tulare model shows no growth in VMT when the Riggins widening is coded into the roadway network.
c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project is not anticipated to substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). Improvements would include new 12’ vehicular travel lanes (4 lanes total), new Class II bike lanes, new street lighting, new landscaped medians, a new bus turnout, new fire hydrants, new sewer line, new traffic signal, and curb returns at all involved intersections.
Construction would include demolition of existing asphalt between Kelsey Street and Shirk Street, removal of trees along Riggin Avenue frontage, and relocation of 17 existing power poles. The proposed project design will be subject to review and permitting by the City of Visalia and other agencies (as described in the Project Description) to ensure the design and construction is consistent with applicable standards. This impact is less than significant.
3-70
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant Impact : The proposed project would widen Riggin Avenue from two to four lanes between Kelsey Street and Shirk Street, thus providing additional travel lanes that could be utilized by emergency vehicles on a one -mi
le segment of Riggin Avenue. Therefore, the proposed
project is anticipated to enhance emergency access, and would not result in inadequate e mergency access. This impact is less than significant
Mitigation Measures for Transportation
None Required
3-71
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code
section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically defined
in terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe, and that is:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
b) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant
to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the resource to
a California Native American tribe.
Environmental Setting
A Cultural Resources Assessment was conducted by Taylored Archaeology in November 2020. The Assessment included a Cultural Resources Records Search, Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File Search, Archival Research, Native American Outreach, and a Pedestrian Survey. The Assessment did not identify any tribal cultural resources within the project area. The Full Cultural Resources Assessment is available in Appendix C.
Native American Consultation: On October 26, 2020, an e-mail was sent to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) requesting a search of its Sacred Lands File and the contact information for local Native American tribal representatives who may have an interest in sharing information about the Project area and surrounding area. The NAHC responded on November 9, 2020, with its search findings and attached a list of Native American tribes and individuals culturally affiliated with the Project area. On November 10, 2020, a letter describing the project was sent to each of the individuals identified in the NAHC response. Follow-up contact by e-mail was completed on November 12, 2020 and telephone calls were placed on November 18, 2020 to confirm receipt of the letter and gather any information tribal representatives may want to share about resources in the Project area or general vicinity. Three responses were received during this outreach process. A representative from the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi-Yokut Tribe requested that an archaeological records search and cultural resourc es survey be done before any ground disturbance. The other two responses indicated that the Tribe had no comment on the proposed project. Native American Consultation efforts are detailed further in The Cultural Resources Assessment (Appendix C).
3-72
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 Definitions
• Historical Resources: Historical resources are defined by CEQA as resources that are listed in or eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources, resources that are listed in a local historical resource register, or resources that are otherwise determined to be hi storical under California Public Resources Code Section 21084.1 or California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5. Under these definitions Historical Resources can include archaeological resources, Tribal cultural resources, and Paleontological Resources.
• Archaeological Resources: As stated above, archaeological resources may be considered historical resources. If they do not meet the qualifications under the California Public Resources Code 21084.1 or California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5, they are instead determined to be “unique” as defined by the CEQA Statute Section 21083.2. A unique archaeological resource is an artifact, object, or site that: (1) contains information (for which there is a demonstrable public interest) needed to answer important scientific research questions; (2) has a special and particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or (3) is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic e vent or person.
• Tribal Cultural Resource (TCR): Tribal Cultural Resources can include site features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, or objects, which are of cultural value to a Tribe. It is either listed on or eligible for the CA Historic Register or a local historic register, or determined by the lead agency to be treated as TCR.
• Paleontological Resources: For the purposes of this section, “paleontological resources” refers to the fossilized plant and animal remains of prehistoric species. P aleontological Resources are a limited scientific and educational resource and are valued for the information they yield about the history of the earth and its ecology. Fossilized remains, such as bones, teeth, shells, and leaves, are found in geologic deposits (i.e., rock formations). Paleontological resources generally include the geologic formations and localities in which the fossils are collected.
Regulatory Setting
National Historic Preservation Act: The National Historic Preservation Act was adopted in 1966 to preserve historic and archeological sites in the United States. The Act created the National Register of Historic Places, the list of National Historic Landmarks, and the State Historic Preservation offices.
California Historic Register: The California Historic Register was developed as a program to identify, evaluate, register, and protect Historical Resources in California. California Historical Landmarks are sites, buildings, features, or ev ents that are of statewide significance and have anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific, religious, experimental, or other value. In order for a resource to be designated as a historical landmark, it must meet the following criteria:
• The first, last, only, or most significant of its type in the state or within a large geographic region (Northern, Central, or Southern California).
• Associated with an individual or group having a profound influence on the history of California. 3-73
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 • A prototype of, or an outstanding example of, a period, style, architectural movement or construction or is one of the more notable works or the best surviving work in a region of a pioneer architect, designer or master builder.
City of Visalia General Plan: The City of Visalia General Plan includes the following goals and policies pertaining to tribal cultural resources:
OSC-P-39 Establish requirements to avoid potential impacts to sites suspected of being archeologically, paleontologically, or historically significant or of concern, by:
• Requiring a records review for development proposed in areas that are considered archaeologically or paleontologically sensitive;
• Determining the potential effects of development and construction on archaeological or paleontological resources (as required by CEQA);
• Requiring pre -construction surveys and monitoring during any ground disturbance for all development in areas of historical and archaeological sensitivity; and • Implementing appropriate measures to avoid the identified impacts, as conditions of project approval
Discussion
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: A Cultural Resources Assessment was conducted in November 2020 for the proposed project. The Assessment included a Cultural Resources Records Search, Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File Search, Archival Research, Native American Outreach, and a Pedestrian Survey.
The Cultural Resources Records Search, NAHC
Sacred Lands File search, archival research, and pedestrian survey did not identify any resources that are listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources, or in a local register of historical resources. The Full Cultural Resources Assessment is available in Appendix C.
Although no tribal cultural resources were identified, the presence of remains or unanticipated cultural resources under the ground surface is possible. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL- 1 and CUL-2 will ensure that impacts to this checklist item will be less than significant with mitigation incorporation.
3-74
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: Based on the findings on the Cultural Resources Assessment, which included a Cultural Resources Records Search, Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File Search, Archival Research, Native American Outreach, and a Pedestrian Survey, there are no known tribal cultural resources within the project area. The Full Cultural Resources Assessment is available in Appendix C.
Although no tribal cultural resources were identified, the presence of remains or unanticipated cultural resources under the ground surface is possible. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL- 1 and CUL-2 will ensure that impacts to this checklist item will be less than significant with mitigation incorporation.
Mitigation Measures for Impacts to Cultural Resources:
Mitigation Measure CUL -1: If cultural resources are encountered during ground -disturbing activities, work in the immediate area must halt and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (NPS 1983) should be contac ted immediately to evaluate the find. If the discovery proves to be significant under CEQA, additional work such as data recovery excavation and Native American consultation may be warranted to mitigate any adverse effects.
Mitigation Measure CUL -2: The discovery of human remains is always a possibility during ground disturbing activities. If human remains are found, the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the County Coroner must be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehisto ric, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a most likely descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.
3-75
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which serves
or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity of
local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Environmental Setting
Wastewater: The proposed project will not generate wastewater. Sewer lines would be extended along Riggin Avenue as part of the proposed improvements, per City of Visalia development standards.
Solid Waste: The proposed project will not generate solid waste and will not require solid waste collection services.
Water: An existing 12” water line runs along Riggin Avenue through the project area. The project includes construction of fire hydrants at 1000ft intervals along the length of the improvement area. Other than emergency fire hydrant use, the project would not utilize any water resources.
Storm Drainage: As part of proposed improvements to Riggin Avenue, the Project includes extension of stormdrain lines along the length of the project site. Stormwater would be collected and conveyed to a basin located at the extensions of Ferguson and Kelsey.
3-76
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 Regulatory Setting
CalRecycle: California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Natural Resources – Division 7 contains all current CalRecycle regulations regarding nonhazardous waste management in the state. These regulations include standards for the handling of solid waste, standards for the handling of compostable materials, design standards for disposal facilities, and disposal standards for specific types of waste.
Central Valley RWQCB: The Central Valley RWQCB requires a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for projects disturbing more than one acre of total land area. Because the project is greater than one acre, a SWPPP to manage stormwater generated during project construction will be required.
The Central Valley RWQCB regulates Wastewater Discharges to Land by establishing thresholds for discharged pollutants and implementing monitoring programs to evaluate program compliance. This program regulates approximately 1500 dischargers in the region.
The Central Valley RWQCB is also responsible for implementing the federal program, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The NPDES Program is the federal permitting program that regulates discharges of pollutants to surface waters of the U.S. Under this program, a NPDES permit is required to discharge pollutants into Water’s of the U.S. There are 350 permitted facilities within the Central Valley Region.
Discussion
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project will extend sewer and stormwater lines through the project area and relocate 17 existing power poles as part of improvements to Riggin Avenue.
Although the project would result in the construction of new wastewater collection facilities (the proposed mainline pipe to run along Riggin Avenue), the project itself will not generate wastewater, so it does not have to potential to exceed wastewater treatment capacities.
The proposed improvements would result in new impervious surfaces that could increase the amount of stormwater runoff. However, the project proposes to extend stormwater lines through the project area as part of the improvements to Riggin Avenue. Stormwater would be collected and conveyed to a basin located at the extensions of Ferguson and Kelsey , which has adequate capacity to accommodate these flows. The project will also incorporate appropriate pollution prevention and MBPs in accordance with the City design standards and RWQCB requirements . The existing power poles along the north side of Riggin Avenue will need to be relocated to accommodate the proposed street improvements. Relocation of these poles will not necessitate new power generation facilities to be constructed that would have a significant impact on the environment.
Because the improvements to Riggin Avenue, including sewer lines, stormwater lines, and power pole relocation, would not require the construction any additional water, wastewater treatment, storage drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilitie s beyond those analyzed in this IS/MND, the impact is less than significant.
3-77
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reas onably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less than Significant Impact: The only water used by the proposed project would be from fire hydrants that are proposed as part of improvements on Riggin Avenue. These fire hydrants would only be utilized in emergency situations. As such, existing water supplies are sufficient to serve the project during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. The impact is less than significant.
c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
No Impact: The project itself will not generate wastewater. There is no impact.
d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
No Impact: The project itself will not generate solid waste and would therefore not impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. There is no impact.
e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact: The project itself will not generate solid waste and would therefore not conflict with any federal, state, or local management and reduction statutes or regulations related to solid waste. There is no impact.
Mitigation Measures for Utilities and Service Systems
None Required
3-78
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 XX. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or
that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-
fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Regulatory Setting
Definitions:
Fire hazard severity zones: geographical areas designated pursuant to California Public Resources Codes Sections 4201 through 4204 and classified as Very High, High, or Moderate in State Responsibility Areas or as Local Agency Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones designated pursuant to California Government Code, Sections 51175 through 51189.
Tulare County Disaster Preparedness Guide (2011): The Tulare County Preparedness Guide provides guidelines regarding disaster preparedness and evacuation planning for Tulare County residents.
Tulare County Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (2018): The 2018 Tulare County Multi- Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan assesses the natural, technological, and human -caused risks to Communities within Tulare County. The proposed project site is not located in an area designated as a Fire Hazard Severity Zone by the Tulare County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Discussion
a) Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact: The project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. There is no impact.
3-79
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No Impact: The project is located on a flat area of land with little risk of fire. The Tulare County Multi- Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the risk of fire within the City of Visalia as having unlikely frequency, limited extent, limited magnitude, and low significance. T he project would not exacerbate wildfire risks and expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire. There is no impact.
c) Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
No Impact: The proposed project involves the installation of fire hydrants as part of proposed street improvements. If anything, installation of these features would reduce fire risks within the vicinity of the project site. There is no impact.
d) Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire instability, or drainage changes?
No Impact: The project site is located on land with relatively flat topography. Therefore, the project would not be susceptible to downslope or downstream flooding or landslides as a result of post -fire instability or drainage changes. There is no impact.
Mitigation Measures for Wildfire
None Required
3-80
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Does the project have the potential
substantially to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects,
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: This initial study/mitigated negative declaration found the project could have significant i mpacts on biological, cultural, and Tribal cultural resources.
However, implementation of the identified mitigation measures for each respective section would ensure that impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporation.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less Than Significant Impact : CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i) states that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a project is significant and whether the effects of the 3-81
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects. Due to the nature of the project and consistency with environmental policies, incremental contributions to impacts are considered less than cumulatively considerable. The proposed project would not contribute substantially to adverse cumulative conditions, or create any substantial indirect impacts (i.e., increase in population could lead to an increase need for housing, increase in traffic, air pollutants, etc). Impacts would be less than significant.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact : The analyses of environmental issues contained in this Initial Study indicate that the project is not expected to have substantial impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Mitigation measures have been incorporated in the project design to reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant, which results in a less than significant impact to this checklist item.
3-82
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021
3.6 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
As required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, subd. (a)(1), a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the project in order to monitor the implementation of the mitigation measures that have been adopted for the project. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been created bas ed upon the findings of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Riggin Avenue Widening Project in the City of Visalia.
The first column of the table identifies the mitigation measure. The second column names the party responsible for carrying out the required action. The third column, “Timing of Mitigation Measure” identifies the time the mitigation measure should be initiated. The fourth column, “Responsible Party for Monitoring,” names the party ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented. The last column will be used by the City of Visalia to ensure that the individual mitigation measures have been monitored.
Plan checking and verification of mitigation compliance shall be the responsibility of the City of Visalia .
Mitigation Measure
Responsible
Party for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification
Mitigation Measure BIO -1: Removal of the
valley oak tree requires mitigation by paying a
mitigation fee, or by performing in-kind
mitigation, or by a combination of payment of
mitigation fee and in -kind mitigation. Oak tree
removal, and mitigation will be in accordance
with the City of Visalia Oak Tree Mitigation
Policy, pursuant to Visalia Municipal Code
sections 12.24.037 and 12.24.110.
Project Sponsor
Prior to the
start of
construction.
City of Visalia
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: If cultural resources
are encountered during ground- disturbing
activities, work in the immediate area must halt
and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of
the Interior’s Professional Qualifications
Standards for archaeology (NPS 1983) should be
contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If
the discovery proves to be significant under
CEQA, additional work such as data recovery
excavation and Native American consultation
may be warranted to mitigate any adverse
effects.
Project Sponsor
& Construction
Contractor
Ongoing during
construction. City of Visalia
Mitigation Measure CUL -2: The discovery of
human remains is always a possibility during
ground disturbing activities. If human remains
are found, the State of California Health and
Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no
further disturbance shall occur until the County
Coroner has made a determination of origin and
disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 5097.98. In the event of an
unanticipated discovery of human remains, the
County Coroner must be notified immediately. If
the human remains are determined to be
Project Sponsor
& Construction
Contractor
Ongoing during
construction. City of Visalia
3-83
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 Mitigation Measure
Responsible
Party for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification
prehistoric, the coroner will notify the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which
will determine and notify a most likely
descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the
inspection of the site within 48 hours of
notification and may recommend scientific
removal and nondestructive analysis of human
remains and items associated with Native
American burials.
3-84
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021
3.7 Supporting Information and Sources
1. AB 3098 List
2. City of Visalia General Plan
3. City of Visalia General Plan EIR
4. City of Visalia Climate Action Plan
5. City of Visalia 2015 Urban Water Management Plan
6. City of Visalia Zoning Ordinance
7. Engineering Standards, City of Visalia
8. SJVAPCD Regulations and Guidelines
9. Flood Insurance Rate Maps
10. California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook
11. 2008 (California Environmental Quality Act CEQA Guidelines
12. California Building Code
13. California Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP)
14. “Construction Noise Handbook.” U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration.
15. Government Code Section 65962.5
16. California Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA)
17. Cypher, Brian, Et Al. Conservation of Endangered Tipton Kangaroo Rats (Dipodomys Nitratoides Nitratoides): Status Surveys, Habitat Suitability, And Conservation Strategies. California Department Of Fish And Wildlife, 2016.
18. California Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan: New Residential Zero Net Energy Action Plan 2015- 2020, June 2015
19. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Mitigation Measures (http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/Mitigation-Measures.pdf)
20. “Residential Water Use Trends and Implications for Conservation Policy.” Legislative Analyst’s Office/The California Legislature’s Nonpartisan Fiscal and Policy Advisor. March 2017.
21. US Census (2014-2018). QuickFacts Visalia city, California. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/visaliacitycalifornia
Section 4
List of Preparers
4-1
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2021 City of Visalia
315 East Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
SECTION 4
List of Preparers
Project Title: Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
List of Preparers
4-Creeks Inc.
• David Duda, AICP, GISP
• Molly McDonnel, Associate Planner
• Kyle McDonald, PE
• Macy Hernandez, Asst. Engineering Designer
Persons and Agencies Consulted
The following individuals and agencies contributed to this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration:
City of Visalia
• Paul Bernal, City Planner
• Diego Corvera, PE
• Devon Jones, Economic Development Manager
Taylored Archaeology
• Consuelo Sauls
TJKM
• Colin Burgett, Sr. Project Manager
SOAR Environmental Consulting
• Jon Sarquis, DVBE, SDVOSB
• Casey Stewman, Biologist
Appendix A
Road Construction Emissions
Model Results
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 9.0.0
Daily Emission Estimates for -> Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases (Pounds) ROG (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) NOx (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) SOx (lbs/day) CO2 (lbs/day) CH4 (lbs/day) N2O (lbs/day) CO2e (lbs/day) Grubbing/Land Clearing 2.53 21.95 27.33 141.14 1.14 140.00 30.13 1.01 29.12 0.05 5,201.93 1.40 0.12 5,273.83 Grading/Excavation 11.13 89.87 120.58 145.00 5.00 140.00 33.62 4.50 29.12 0.21 20,785.73 6.18 0.28 21,023.61 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 8.22 76.70 81.45 143.62 3.62 140.00 32.47 3.35 29.12 0.16 15,250.09 3.17 0.19 15,387.32 Paving 2.93 37.86 28.62 1.55 1.55 0.00 1.37 1.37 0.00 0.06 6,131.37 1.67 0.11 6,206.87 Maximum (pounds/day) 11.13 89.87 120.58 145.00 5.00 140.00 33.62 4.50 29.12 0.21 20,785.73 6.18 0.28 21,023.61 Total (tons/construction project) 0.45 3.92 4.71 6.75 0.20 6.55 1.54 0.18 1.36 0.01 845.27 0.23 0.01 854.44 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2022
Project Length (months) -> 5
Total Project Area (acres) -> 14
Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (acres) -> 14
Water Truck Used? -> Yes
Phase Soil Asphalt Soil Hauling Asphalt Hauling Worker Commute Water Truck Grubbing/Land Clearing 0 0 0 0 480 120
Grading/Excavation 0 0 0 0 1,680 120
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0 0 0 0 1,400 80
Paving 0 0 0 0 880 80
CO2e emissions are estimated by multiplying mass emissions for each GHG by its global warming potential (GWP), 1 , 25 and 298 for CO2, CH4 and N2O, respectively. Total CO2e is then estimated by summing CO2e estimates over all GHGs.
Total Emission Estimates by Phase for -> Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases
(Tons for all except CO2e. Metric tonnes for CO2e) ROG (tons/phase) CO (tons/phase) NOx (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) SOx (tons/phase) CO2 (tons/phase) CH4 (tons/phase) N2O (tons/phase) CO2e (MT/phase) Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.01 0.12 0.15 0.78 0.01 0.77 0.17 0.01 0.16 0.00 28.61 0.01 0.00 26.31 Grading/Excavation 0.28 2.22 2.98 3.59 0.12 3.47 0.83 0.11 0.72 0.01 514.45 0.15 0.01 472.04 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.14 1.27 1.34 2.37 0.06 2.31 0.54 0.06 0.48 0.00 251.63 0.05 0.00 230.33 Paving 0.02 0.31 0.24 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 50.58 0.01 0.00 46.45 Maximum (tons/phase) 0.28 2.22 2.98 3.59 0.12 3.47 0.83 0.11 0.72 0.01 514.45 0.15 0.01 472.04 Total (tons/construction project) 0.45 3.92 4.71 6.75 0.20 6.55 1.54 0.18 1.36 0.01 845.27 0.23 0.01 775.14 CO2e emissions are estimated by multiplying mass emissions for each GHG by its global warming potential (GWP), 1 , 25 and 298 for CO2, CH4 and N2O, respectively. Total CO2e is then estimated by summing CO2e estimates over all GHGs.
The CO2e emissions are reported as metric tons per phase.
Daily VMT (miles/day)
Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns G and H. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column I are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns J and K.
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk)
PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.
Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns G and H. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column I are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns J and K.
Total Material Imported/Exported
Volume (yd3/day)
Appendix B
Biological Resources Assessment
CEQA Initial Study for the West Riggin Avenue Widening
Project
Prepared for
324 South Santa Fe Street, Suite A
Visalia, CA 93292
Prepared by
March 12, 2021
4Creeks Riggin Avenue Initial Study 1
Contents
Biological Resources.................................................................................................................................. 3 Methods .................................................................................................................................................... 7
1.1. Literature Review .......................................................................................................................... 7
1.2. Pedestrian Biological Assessment ................................................................................................. 8
1.2.1. Field Reconnaissance Methodology ......................................................................................... 8
1.2.2. Field Reconnaissance Photos .................................................................................................... 9
1.2.3. Field Reconnaissance Results .................................................................................................. 19
2.1 Plants ........................................................................................................................................... 21
2.2.1 California jewelflower (Caulanthus californicus) ....................................................................... 21
2.2.2 Recurved larkspur (Delphinium recurvatum) ............................................................................ 22
2.2.3 Hoover’s spurge (Euphorbia hooveri) ........................................................................................ 22
2.2.4 San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass (Orcuttia inaequalis) ........................................................ 22
2.2.5 San Joaquin adobe sunburst (Pseudobahia peirsonii) ............................................................... 22
2.4. Invertebrates ................................................................................................................................... 24
2.4.1. Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) ........................................................................ 24
2.4.2. Vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi) .................................................................... 25
2.5. Fish .................................................................................................................................................. 25
2.5.1. Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) .................................................................................. 25
2.6. R
eptiles ............................................................................................................................................ 25
2.6.1. Giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas) ................................................................................... 25
2.6.2. Blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia silus) ............................................................................ 26
2.7. Amphibians ..................................................................................................................................... 26
2.7.1. California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) .............................................................................. 26
2.7.2. California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) .......................................................... 27
2.8. Birds ................................................................................................................................................ 28
2.8.1. Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) ........................................................................................ 28
2.9. Mammals ........................................................................................................................................ 28
2.9.1. San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) .......................................................................... 28
2.9.2. Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) .......................................................................... 29 4Creeks Riggin Avenue Initial Study 2
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Project Location........................................................................................................................ 5 Figure 2 – Habitat Assessment Boundary ................................................................................................. 6 Figure 3 – Habitat Map ............................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 4 – Intersection of Shirk Street and Riggin Avenue from southwestern corner ............................ 9 Figure 5 – Intersection of Shirk Street and Riggin Avenue from northeastern corner ........................... 10 Figure 6 – Roadside ephemeral swale vegetated with primarily ruderal, non-native annuals .............. 11 Figure 7 – Concrete irrigation culvert ..................................................................................................... 12 Figure 8 – Road shoulder and active agricultural lands of the Project Footprint. .................................. 13 Figure 9 – North side of Riggin Avenue and unvegetated road shoulder .............................................. 14 Figure 10 – North side of Riggin Avenue with unvegetated road shoulder ............................................ 15 Figure 11 – Mature, multi-trunk, native, valley oak (Quercus lobata) .................................................... 16 Figure 13 – New sections of irrigated landscaping and paved curb ....................................................... 18
List of Tables
Table 1: Regional Special Status Plant Species ....................................................................................... 20 Table 2: Regional Special Status Wildlife Species................................................................................... 23 Table 3 – Special Status Species Findings ................................................................................................ 30 4Creeks Riggin Avenue Initial Study 3
Biological Resources
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Within the project:
Potentially Less than Less than No Impact
Significant Significant with Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
4Creeks Riggin Avenue Initial Study 4
Impact Discussion
a. No impact. The existing roadway system, agricultural activities, and development within the project area, have altered the natural landscape by the introduction of horticultural and non -native plant species. By the removal of potentially suitable native habitat for sensitive plant or animal species within the APE. No impacts are expected to any of the special-status species that have any potential to occur in the APE.
b. No Impact. During the Habitat Assessment performed by Soar Environmental, no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities were observed on -site. Development of the proposed project would not impact any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
c. No Impact. No water or other hydro logic features occur within the limits of construction and operation of the proposed project. There are no jurisdictional water features and no nexus to Waters of the United States. Therefore, no impacts to state or federally protected wetlands would occur due to the proposed project.
d. Less than Significant Impact. The project involves widening an existing two lane paved road from 30’ wide to 74’ wide, and includes other improvements such as sidewalks, landscaped medians, and bike paths on each side of the road and traffic signals at one intersection. This roadway widening project will likely have some negative impact on the ease of movement of resident special- status wildlife because the paved roadway is getting wider. However, the West R iggin Avenue Widening Project is surrounded on all sides by active agricultural lands (south and east), orchards (north), commercial development (southwest) and urban housing (southeast). The Project contains no waterways, streambeds, wetlands, or natural communities. As such, the project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish, wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites.
Converting land use from active agriculture and orchard and unvegetated ROW is considered a Less than Significant Impact.
e. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The City of Visalia Valley Oak Tree Ordinance contains requirements to preserve and maintain valley oak ( Quercus lobata) trees in and near the City and requires mitigation based on the size or diameter at breast height (dbh) of the valley oak being removed in order to be issued a permit for removal (City of Visalia, 2020). In addition, t he City of Visalia has regulations guiding the replanting and establishment of replacement valley oak trees in areas where they will be protected and conserved on public land to compensate for removal of large valley oaks in the City. One approximately 5.5 foot dbh valley oak tree occurs within the Project site, approximately 300 feet east of Kelsey Street on the north side of Riggin Ave., so the policies related to tree preservation do apply. The tree is a large canopied, multi- trunk tree that has high value to wildlife and is likely more than 500 years old. The edge of the trunk is currently approximately 9 feet north of the edge of Riggin Avenue. Removal of this large native valley oak tree would be a significant impact in terms of violating a local City ordinance for the City that is the lead agency, but with incorporation of the City of Visalia Valley Oak Tree Ordinance and by following the City of Visalia Oak Tree Mitigation Policy the impact would be reduced to Less than Significant. The project proponent will have to obtain an oak removal permit and comply with all of the City mitigation measures regarding removal of this large native oak tree. Mitigation involves replacing the valley oak with many young valley oaks elsewhere and/or paying fees to the City for loss of the oak to be used for native oak restoration.
4Creeks Riggin Avenue Initial Study 5
f. No Impact. The proposed project is not located within the boundaries of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
Environmental Evaluation
The City of Visalia (City) has tasked 4Creeks, Inc. (4Creeks) with conducting a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)] Initial Study for the West Riggin Avenue Widening and Traffic Signal Installation Project (Project) within the City, and in unincorporated Tulare County, California. As part of this Initial Study, 4Creeks sought an environmental consulting firm to provide biological services. Soar Environmental Consulting, Inc. (Soar Environmental) prepared this Biological Resource Assessment for 4Creeks, in support of in support of CEQA requirements (Section 15380 of CEQA Guidelines). The 14-acre proposed Project involves the reconstruction of 1 mile of existing roadway between Kelsey Street and Shirk Street to accommodate a 4-lane arterial street with 110’ total ROW. Improvements would include new 12’ vehicular travel lanes (4 lanes total), new Class II bike lanes, new street lighting, new landscaped medians, a new bus turnout, new fire hydrants, new sewer line, new traffic signal, and curb returns at all involved intersections. Construction would require demolition of existing asphalt between Kelsey Street and Shirk Street, removal of trees along Riggin Avenue frontage (including 2-3 rows of orchard trees along the north side of Riggin Avenue), and relocation of 17 existing power poles.
Environmental Setting
The Project Footprint is comprised of portions of Tulare County Assessor Parcel Numbers 077 -840-001 and 077-840-003 and is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Goshen and Visalia, 7.5- minute quadrangles, at an elevation ranging from approximately 300 to 330 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The Project site has historically been used for agricultural purposes. The land use north of Riggin Avenue is currently active almond and pistachio orchards (Figure 2). The adjacent land uses to the south of Riggin Avenue are active agricultural land and a livestock feed lot. Residential homes are present along Riggin Avenue and east of Shirk Street south of Riggin Avenue. In the western portion of the Project Footprint south of Riggin Avenue, the biologist noted newly installed landscaped sidewalks with curb and gutter fronting various commercial enterprises. Overhead utility lines follow the north side of Riggin Avenue.
Prior to field activities, Soar Environmental researched the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), to learn which species could potentially be present onsite. Soar Environmental researched specific species and habitat requirements for the species noted in the CNDDB, California Native Plant Society (CNPS), and IPaC databases and included proximal species observations and species status for these, and surrounding parcels, in this report.
On
November 12, 2020, Soar Environmental Biologist Casey Stewman performed a pedestrian habitat assessment of the Project Footprint, which is comprised of highly compacted and disturbed road shoulders, and active orchards, whose rows are maintained free of vegetation using mechanical and chemical methods ( Figure 3). No native or natural plant communities occur in the 14 -acre Project Footprint. Rock dove ( Columba livia), brown-headed cowbird ( Molothrus ater), and one red- tail hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) were observed within the Project Footprint. However, the surrounding commercial orchards appeared to have more avian activity than the Project site itself. 4Creeks Riggin Avenue Initial Study 6
Figure 1 – Project Location
4Creeks Riggin Avenue Initial Study 7
Figure 2 – Habitat Assessment Boundary
Figure 3 – Habitat Map
4Creeks Riggin Avenue Initial Study 8
Methods
1.1. Literature Review
Prior to performing the habitat assessment, Soar Environmental conducted a review of the CNDDB and the CNPS Online Rare Plant Inventory for the Cairn’s Corner, Exeter, Goshen, Ivanhoe, Monson, Paige, Traver, Tulare, and Visalia 7.5-minute USGS quadrangles, and the USFWS IPaC. The CNDDB search indicated that the Federal and/or State-listed special-status wildlife species most likely to occur within or near the Project Footprint are Swainson’s hawk, vernal pool fairy shrimp, California tiger salamander, and San Joaquin kit fox. The suite of rare and endangered plants known from the region include heartscale (Atriplex cordulata) and other diminutive chenopod annuals, California jewelflower and San Joaquin adobe sunburst.
The IPaC search revealed the Federally listed sensitive species likely to occur within, or near the Project Footprint are San Joaquin kit fox, Tipton kangaroo rat, blunt -nosed leopard lizard, giant garter snake, California red- legged frog, California tiger salamander, delta smelt, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and San Joaquin adobe sunburst.
Soar Environmental researched the species noted in the CNDDB and IPaC databases and included proximal species observations and status in this report. The Project site occurs primarily on the north western sections of the Visalia 7.5 -minute USGS quadrangle but also on the north eastern corner sections of the Goshen quadrangle.
The CNDDB search indicated that the Federal and/or State-listed special-status wildlife species most likely to occur within, or near the Project Footprint are:
• Swainson’s hawk,
• vernal pool fairy shrimp,
• California tiger salamander, and,
• San Joaquin kit fox.
The suite of rare and endangered plants known from the region include:
• heartscale (Atriplex cordulata) and other diminutive chenopod annuals, • Recurved larkspur
• California jewelflower, and,
• San Joaquin adobe sunburst
The IPaC search revealed the Federally listed sensitive species likely to occur within, or near the Project Footprint are:
• San Joaquin kit fox,
• Tipton kangaroo rat,
• Fresno kangaroo rat,
• blunt-nosed leopard lizard,
• giant garter snake,
• California re d-legged frog,
• California tiger salamander,
• delta smelt,
• vernal pool fairy shrimp, and,
• San Joaquin adobe sunburst.
4Creeks Riggin Avenue Initial Study 9
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture -Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA -NRCS) Web Soil Survey, two soil types occur in the Project site: 101 Akers-Akers (Saline-Sodic complex comprising approximately 41% of Project Footprint) and, 122 Grangeville sandy loam, a well-drained agricultural or range soil (comprising approximately 59% of project Footprint). Due to the disturbed and compacted nature of the road shoulders with above-ground power lines in the Project Footprint, the road shoulders are largely devoid of herbaceous vegetation and/or an observable native seed bank.
1.2. Pedestrian Biological Assessment
1.2.1. Field Reconnaissance Methodology
On November 12, 2020, Soar Environmental biologist Casey Stewman, conducted a 2.5 -hour pedestrian habitat assessment throughout the entire Project Footprint. Mr. Stewman began at the intersection of Shirk Street and Riggin Avenue where new traffic signals are proposed (Figures 4 and 5) . Mr. Stewman proceeded west along Riggin Avenue down the north side of the roadside surveying the entire Project Footprint north of Riggin Avenue. Mr. Stewman continued approximately one mile to the intersection of Riggin Avenue and Kelsey Street, and he crossed over Riggin Avenue and walked eastward on the opposite side of Riggin Avenue, surveying the road shoulder and neighboring ag lands and livestock feedlot. The biologist surveyed the areas surrounding the Project Footprint in addition to the Project Footprint itself.
During the survey, Mr. Stewman did not observe any small mammal burrows or California ground squirrel colonies in the Project footprint or surrounding adjacent study area. At the intersection of Riggin Avenue and Shirk Street, the Soar Biologist noted an exposed con crete stormwater catch basin and irrigation culvert with no recent evidence of water (Figures 6 and 7). The majority of the Riggin Avenue shoulders are completely devoid of vegetation and may have been potentially impacted by orchards and the commercial cattle feedlots (Figures 9 and 10) . One large, approximately 5.5 -to-6-foot diameter at breast height old growth, multi-trunk valley oak (Quercus lobata) tree occurs within the Project Footprint on the north side of Riggin Avenue, approximately 300 feet east of Kelsey Street. The tree is readily visible on aerial photos. The edge of pavement is approximately 8 to 9 feet from the trunk of this heritage size multi-trunk tree (Figure 11 and 12) . No native shrub species or native plant communities were present. No nesting birds or active nests were observed in the large, canopied valley oak. The Soar Biologist observed utility lines and associated poles along the north side of Riggin Avenue. During the Survey, the biologist observed no small mammal burrows or small mammal activity within the Footprint.
After surveying the entire Project Footprint, Mr. Stewman used binoculars to observe the surrounding agricultural fields for potential special-status species, or suitable habitat for such. Mr. Stewman did not observe any special-status species, nor suitable habitat. 4Creeks Riggin Avenue Initial Study 10
1.2.2. Field Reconnaissance Photos
Figure 4 – Intersection of Shirk Street and Riggin Avenue from southwestern corner of Project Footprint (View North)
4Creeks Riggin Avenue Initial Study 11
Figure 5 – Intersection of Shirk Street and Riggin Avenue from northeastern corner of Project Footprint (View northeast)
4Creeks Riggin Avenue Initial Study 12
Figure 6 – Roadside ephemeral swale vegetated with primarily ruderal, non-native annuals, including Russian thistle or tumbleweed (Salsola tragus) draining to concrete culvert at intersection of Shirk Street and Riggin Ave (view north)
4Creeks Riggin Avenue Initial Study 13
Figure 7 – Concrete irrigation culvert located on the northwestern corner of Shirk St at Riggin Ave, the culvert traverses north to south under Riggin Avenue at intersection with Shirk Street (Facing northeast)
4Creeks Riggin Avenue Initial Study 14
Figure 8 – Road shoulder and active agricultural lands of the Project Footprint from the south side of Riggin Avenue at intersection with Shirk Street (View west).
4Creeks Riggin Avenue Initial Study 15
Figure 9 North side of Riggin Avenue and unvegetated road shoulder. Note active orchard to north and active ag fields to the south, across Riggin Avenue (View west)
4Creeks Riggin Avenue Initial Study 16
Figure 10 – North side of Riggin Avenue with unvegetated road shoulder. Note the orchard to the north, overhead power lines, and cattle feed lots to the south, across Riggin Avenue (View east)
4Creeks Riggin Avenue Initial Study 17
Figure 11 – Mature, multi-trunk, native, valley oak (Quercus lobata), with 5-foot diameter at breast height (dbh) trunk, located on north side of Riggin Avenue approximately 300 feet east of Kelsey Street. (View west)
4Creeks Riggin Avenue Initial Study 18
Figure 12 – Mature multi-trunk valley oak (Quercus lobata) with overhead powerlines on north side of Riggin Avenue near western edge. Trunk is approximately 8 to 9 feet north of asphalt pavement (View east)
4Creeks Riggin Avenue Initial Study 19
Figure 13 – New sections of irrigated landscaping and paved curb on south side of Riggin Avenue near Kelsey Street (View East)
4Creeks Riggin Avenue Initial Study 20
1.2.3. Field Reconnaissance Results
During the field reconnaissance no special- status species were observed within, or surrounding, the Project Footprint. The Project Footprint was found to be heavily disturbed, previously impacted and regularly maintained at short intervals by both private landowners and City and County personnel as a Rights-of -Way (ROW) on the north and south sides of Riggin Avenue. The soils exposed in the Project site are heavily compacted from automotive and agricultural equipment. The land surrounding the Riggin Avenue road shoulders is being used for active agriculture, functioning livestock feedlots, and for two residential properties or as graveled pullout from Riggin Avenue. No native species were obser ved in any abundance along the entirety of the Project site, and few plants occur as the Project Footprint is comprised of road shoulders and regularly maintained crop land, using both chemical and mechanical methods, to be kept free of vegetation. Any patches of plants found in localized areas were composed of common, non-native species, however, these localized areas were primarily just outside the Project Footprint in the adjacent orchard property. No ground squirrel colonies or small mammal burrows were observed anywhere within the Project Footprint, and minimal native seed bank is anticipated to be stored in these historic orchards and active agricultural lands. The dirt shoulders within the project Footprint are heavily compacted and disturbed. New landscaped and irrigated sidewalks with curb and gutter are being installed along Riggin Avenue (Figure 12).
The compacted and disturbed bare ground may provide limited poor-quality habitat for certain terrestrial species, such as San Joaquin kit fox. The oak tree along the north side of Riggin Avenue near Kelsey Street provides limited raptor foraging habitat, however, it appears that this oak is within the construction footprint and will require removal during Project activities. The City of Visalia has a Valley Oak Ordinance that can permit the removal of the tree with mitigation based on the size of the tree removed (City of Visalia, 2020). All herbaceous plants observed in the Project Footprint were common, non-native species, typical of disturbed areas, such as Shepherd’s purse ( Capsella bursa- pastoris), tumbleweed or Russian thistle (Salsola tragus) and ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus). The Soar biologist did not observe any native plant communities within, or surrounding the Project site, other than the lone valley oak tree (Figure 11) located on the north side of Riggin near Kelsey Street.
4Creeks Riggin Avenue Initial Study 21
Table 1: Regional Special Status Plant Species
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
Fed/CA/CNPS/B
loom Period
General Habitat
Description/Elevation
(ft)
Habitat
Present/
Absent
Rationale
Atriplex cordulata var.
cordulata
heartscale
--/--/1B.2/ April-
October
Chenopod scrub, saline or
alkaline soils/ <230
Absent
While saline
soils occur in
portions of the
Project, the
roadsides are
managed to be
free of
vegetation and
are impacted.
Outside known
elevation
range.
Atriplex cordulata var.
erecticaulis
Earlimart
orache
--/--/1B.2/
August-
November
valley and foothill
grassland /<330
Absent
No grassland
habitat occurs
in the Project.
The site is
heavily
disturbed and
maintained.
Atriplex depressa
bitterscale
--/--/1B.2/
April-October
Chenopod scrub, alkaline
soils/<1100
Absent
No potential
habitat occurs
in Project. The
roadsides are
heavily
disturbed and
maintained.
Atriplex minuscula
lesser saltscale --/--/1B.1/
May-October
Chenopod scrub, alkaline
playa/<330
Absent
No potential
habitat occurs
in Project.
Atriplex persistens vernal pool
smallscale
--/--/1B.2/
June-October
alkaline vernal pools/<380
Absent
No potential
habitat occurs in
Project.
Atriplex subtilis
subtle orache --/--/1B.2/
May-October
valley and foothill
grassland, often on
alkaline and clay/<220
Absent
No habitat occurs
in the Project.
Caulanthus californicus
California
jewelflower
FE/CE/1B.1/
Feb-May
Chenopod scrub, Pinyon-
Juniper woodland, valley
and foothill grassland
/210-3335
Absent
No potential
habitat occurs
in BSA.
Delphinium recurvatum
recurved
larkspur
--/--/1B.2/
March-June
Cismontane woodland,
chenopod scrub, desert
scrub, alkaline soils/100-
1900
Present
One large oak
in Project.
Limited or
marginal
potential
habitat.
Eryngium spinosepalum
spiny-sepaled
button celery
FT/--/1B.2
April-June
Valley and foothill
grassland, vernal
pools/330-4,000
Absent
No grassland or
vernal pool
habitat occurs
in the Project.
Euphorbia
(Chamaescyce) hooveri
Hoover’s
spurge
--/--/1B.2/
June-October
Vernal pools/<800
Absent
No habitat
occurs in the
Project for this
species.
Helianthus winteri
Winter’s
sunflower
--/--/1B.2
January-
December
Openings in cismontane
woodland, valley and
foothill grassland/360-
7500
Absent
This shrub
would have
been
identifiable
during the
survey. It does
not occur in the
Project.
Lasthenia glabrata ssp.
coulteri
Coulter’s
goldfields
--/--/1B.1
Feb-June
Marshes and
swamps/<3,330
Absent
No potential
habitat occurs
in BSA.
4Creeks Riggin Avenue Initial Study 22
Table 1: Regional Special Status Plant Species
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
Fed/CA/CNPS/B
loom Period
General Habitat
Description/Elevation
(ft)
Habitat
Present/
Absent
Rationale
Orcuttia inaequalis
San Joaquin
Valley Orcutt
grass
FT/CE/1B.1/
April-Sept
Vernal pools/<2,500
Absent
No habitat in
Project for the
species.
Pseudobahia peirsonii
San Joaquin
adobe sunburst
FT/CE/1B.1/
Feb-April
Cismontane woodland,
valley and foothill
grassland, adobe clay
/330-2800
Present
One oak tree
occurs in the
Project. No
clay present.
Limited
marginal
potential habitat
occurs.
Puccinellia simplex
California alkali
grass
--/--/1B.2/
March-May
Chenopod scrub,
meadows, alkaline
flats/<2800
Absent
No habitat
occurs in the
Project for this
species.
Sagittaria sanfordii
Sanford’s
arrowhead
FT/CT/1B.1/
May-Nov
Marshes, ponds, ditches
and swamps
(freshwater)/<1000
Absent
No ponds,
wetlands,
ditches or
drainages occur
in the Project.
Key:
Federal
-- = No status definition.
D = Delisted. Status to be monitored for 5 years.
FE = Listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act.
PT = Proposed for federal listing as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act.
SC = Species of concern; species for which existing information indicates it may warrant listing but for which substantial biological information to support a proposed rule is lacking.
SLC = Species of local concern; species for which existing information indicates it may warrant listing but for which substantial biological information to support a proposed rule is lacking.
FT = Listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act.
State
-- = No status definition.
CE = Listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act.
SC = Species of special concern in California.
CT = Listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act.
2.1 Plants
2.2.1 California jewelflower (Caulanthus californicus)
California jewelflower (CJ) is listed as Endangered on the Federal level and as Endangered on the State level. CJ is an annual herb in the mustard family, growing to approximately a foot (12 inches) tall, with white and maroon flowers. This is found only in the south San Joaquin valley and adjacent coastal ranges.
CJ has a blooming period between March and May.
During the field survey, the Soar Biologist did not observe signs of CJ within the Project footprint or surrounding areas. The roadsides that comprise the Project are regularly maintained free of vegetation using mechanical and chemical methods. These areas are also heavily disturbed from motor vehicles, farm equipment and the soils are compacted, covered with gravel and/or covered in garbage or broken glass Figure 3. None to very little of the native seed bank is likely to be present in these long-maintained ROW in their degraded current condition.
4Creeks Riggin Avenue Initial Study 23
CNDDB records do not contain any observations of CJ in the Visalia 7.5 -minute quadrangle in more than 30 years. According to CNDDB records, the most recent report of this species in Tulare County was reported extirpated in 1986.
CJ Habitat
During the field survey, no signs of CJ were observed within the Project footprint or surro unding areas.
However, there are no potential suitable habitat features on site for this species, such as natural grassland areas anywhere throughout the entire Project site. This species is unlikely to be impacted by this Project.
2.2.2 Recurved larkspur (Delphinium recurvatum)
Recurved larkspur (Delphinium recurvatum) is a CNPS List 1B.2 plant in the buttercup family that flowers between March and June and is known to grow on poorly drained fine alkaline soils in grasslands, chenopod scrub (e.g., Atriplex spp.) or oak woodland. Very limited oak habitat occurs beneath and near the one valley oak in the Project site. There is low potential for this species to be present.
2.2.3 Hoover’s spurge (Euphorbia hooveri)
Hoover’s spurge ( Euphorbia h . synonym Chamaesyce h .) is a Federally Threatened (CNPS List 1B.2) annual herbaceous plant in the spurge family (Euphorbiaceae). The species is typically found in vernal pool habitats. The species is in identifiable phenology late in the summer between July and September.
The regular chemical and mechanical previously disturbed and maintained upland roadside contains unlikely, low quality habitat, if any, for the species. No vernal pool habitats or seasonal wetlands occur within or adjacent to the Project. The species is known from vernal pool habitats in the adjacent Monson and Ivanhoe 7.5-minute quadrangles.
2.2.4 San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass (Orcuttia inaequalis) San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass is a Federally Threatened and State Endangered mat-forming, hairy annual species that is known from vernal pool habitats. The closest known occurrence of the species is in the Monson 7.5-minute quadrangle north of the Project. No wetlands, or vernal pool habitats occur in the Project site and the project will have no impact on this species.
2.2.5 San Joaquin adobe sunburst (Pseudobahia peirsonii) San Joaquin adobe sunburst (SJAS) is listed as Threatened on the Federal level and as Endangered on the State level. This species is an annual herb growing up to 70 centimeters (28 inches) tall and is found primarily on the southeastern side of the San Joaquin Valley, at elevations between 330 and 3000 feet above sea level, growing in grasslands and open oak woodland habitats, sometimes on adobe clay. SJAS has an early blooming period, between February and April annually.
During the field survey, the Soar biologist did not observe signs of SJAS habitat or SJAS within the Project footprint or surrounding areas. However, there are areas with unlikely potential habitat on site for this species, such as orchards and active agricultural fields through the north side of the Project site, depicted in Figure 3. However, these orchard rows were maintained free of vegetation, including ground cover, and it is likely given the high interval of mechanical and chemical treatments, that the Project site is purposefully kept free of plants and vegetation, in the places that plants could grow.
SJA
S Habitat
4Creeks Riggin Avenue Initial Study 24
During the field survey, no signs of SJAS were observed within the Project footprint or surrounding areas.
However, there is limited low quality potential habitat near the valley oak and other limited areas for this species on the Project site.
CNDDB records do not contain any observations of SJAS in the Visalia 7.5-minute quadrangle. According to CNDDB records, the nearest occurrence of this species in Tulare County was recorded in the Fountain Springs 7.5-minute quadrangle, more than 30 miles southeast of the Project site in March 2016. Due to poor habitat quality and Lack of occurrences in the vicinity of the Project site, this species is unlikely to be impacted by this Project.
Table 2: Regional Special Status Wildlife Species
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
Fed/CA
General Habitat Description
Habitat
Present
Absent
Rationale
Invertebrates
Branchinecta lynchi
Vernal pool
fairy shrimp
FT/--
Vernal pools, seasonal wetlands
Absent
No wetlands or
vernal pool
habitat occurs
in the Project.
Lepidurus packardi
Vernal pool
tadpole
shrimp
FE/--
Vernal pools
Absent
No wetlands or
vernal pool
habitat occurs
in the Project.
Desmocerus
californicus
dimorphos
Valley
elderberry
longhorn
beetle
FT/--
Lifecycle takes place in and on
elderberry (Sambucus) shrubs
Absent
No elderberry
shrub habitat
occurs in the
Project.
Fish
Hypomesus
transpacificus
Delta smelt
FT / --
Inhabits freshwater and estuaries of
the pacific coast, in areas of aquatic
vegetation.
Absent
No aquatic
habitat occurs
in the Project.
Amphibians and Reptiles
Ambystoma
californiense
California tiger
salamander
FT /CT
Breeding occurs in ponds, vernal
pools and vegetated drainages,
adults primarily live or estivate in
underground animal burrows. They
emerge for rainy night breeding trips
to water sources.
Absent
No potential
breeding or
foraging habitat
present.
Upland habitat
not suitable for
species.
Gambelia silus
Blunt-nosed
Leopard
Lizard
FE/--
Dry washes and riverbeds, sandy
grassland and shrubland, chenopod
scrub
Absent
No vegetated
habitat occurs
in the Project,
bare ground is
present.
Rana aurora
draytonii
California red-
legged frog
FT / SC
Dense, emergent and riparian
vegetation associated with deep (0.7
m), still or slow-moving water.
Absent
The habitats
within the BSA
are not
considered
suitable due to
the brackish
conditions
found at the
site
Thamnophis gigas
Giant Garter
Snake
FE / --
Heavily vegetated freshwater
wetlands and ponds with available
basking habitat.
Absent
No aquatic
habitats within
the Project. No
suitable habitat.
Birds
Agelaius tricolor tricolored
blackbird
-- / CT
Requires dense, tall emergent
vegetation in freshwater and brackish
marshes.
Absent
No habitat
within the
Project.
4Creeks Riggin Avenue Initial Study 25
Table 2: Regional Special Status Wildlife Species
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
Fed/CA
General Habitat Description
Habitat
Present
Absent
Rationale
Buteo swainsoni
Swainson’s
hawk
-- / CT
Nesting in trees or shrubs, this
species feeds voraciously on
grasshoppers and insects.
Present
Limited
marginal
nesting habitat
and low-quality
foraging habitat
in Project.
Coccyzus
americanus
occidentalis
Western
yellow-billed
cuckoo
FT / CE
A rare bird that is dependent on large
tracts of streamside (riparian) forests.
Absent
Suitable nesting
or foraging
habitat is not
present in the
Project.
Melospiza melodia
song sparrow
-- / SC
Resident of the borders between
marsh and upland habitats within the
south arm of San Francisco bay.
Absent
No suitable
habitat for
nesting and
foraging within
the Project.
Mammals
Dipodomys
nitratoides exilis
Fresno
kangaroo rat
FE/--
Occurs in chenopod scrub and
alkaline grassland with seed sources
for forage. Nests in mounds.
Absent
No suitable
grassland and
scrub habitat in
Project. Limited
poor quality
barren upland
habitat occurs.
Dipodomys
nitratoides
Tipton
kangaroo rat
FE / FE
Occurs in chenopod scrub and
alkaline grassland with seed sources
for forage. Nests in mounds.
Absent
No suitable
grassland and
scrub habitat in
Project. Limited
poor quality
barren upland
habitat occurs.
Vulpes macrotis
mutic
San Joaquin
kit fox
FE / CT
San Joaquin kit fox are small and
rare foxes feeding on small
mammals. They occupy grasslands,
woodlands and use human made
landscapes opportunistically and the
Project is within the range of known
populations that extend into Tulare
County.
Present
Limited low
quality upland
dispersal
habitat occurs
in the Project.
No burrows or
small mammal
activity was
observed.
Key:
Federal
- - = No status definition.
E = Listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act.
T = Listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act.
State
-- = No status definition.
E = Listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act.
FP = Fully protected species may not be taken or possessed without a permit from the DFG and/or the FG Commission.
Information on Fully Protected species can be found in DFG code Section 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515.
SC = Species of special concern in California.
T = Listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act.
2.4. Invertebrates
2.4.1. Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi)
Vernal pool fairy shrimp (VPFS) is listed as Threatened on the Federal level and has no listing on the State level. VPFS are one inch (2.5 cm) long, translucent crustaceans, with 11 pairs of appendages. VPFS are limited to vernal pool habitats in Oregon and California and do not occur in riverine, marine, or other permanent bodies of water where fish are present. During the wet
4Creeks Riggin Avenue Initial Study 26
season, the females produce hardy resting eggs, called cysts, which survive the dry season and hatch when the rains come again. During the field survey, the Soar Biologist did not observe signs of VPFS or habitats known to support them within the Project Footprint or surrounding areas. The habitat on the Project Site is not suitable for VPFS as there are only disturbed upland roadsides, active agricultural lands, and orchards present ( e.g., hydric soil, wetland vegetation, and hydrology), and stormwater does not appear to pool for a long enough duration to support any wetland species, including VPFS. CNDDB records do not contain any observations of VPFS in the Visalia 7.5- minute quadrangle. According to CNDDB records, the nearest occurrence of this species in Tulare County was recorded in the Traver 7.5 -minute quadrangle, approximately 20 miles northwest of the Project Footprint, in March 2017.
Because of these reasons, no adverse impacts t o VPFS are anticipated to occur during proposed construction activities.
2.4.2. Vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi)
Vernal pool tadpole shrimp (VPTS) is listed as Endangered on the Federal level and has no listing on the State level. VPTS are 2 to 5 centimeters (one to two inches) long, horseshoe crab shaped crustaceans with appendages. VPTS are limited to vernal pool habitats in Oregon and California and do not occur in riverine, marine, or other permanent bodies of water where fish are present.
During the wet season, the females produce hardy resting eggs, called cysts, which survive the dry season and hatch when the rains come again. During the field survey, the Soar Biologist did not observe signs of VPTS or habitats known to support them within the Project footprint or surrounding areas. The habitat on the Project Site is not suitable for VPTS as it is upland habitat in active agricultural or livestock use, there are no vernal pool characteristics present ( e.g., hydric soil, wetland vegetation, and hydrology), and stormwater does not appear to pool for a long enough duration to support any wetland species, including VPTS. CNDDB records do not contain any observations of VPTS in the Visalia 7.5-minute quadrangle. No vernal pools occur in the Project footprint. The Project will not impact this species.
2.5. Fish
2.5.1. Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus)
Delta smelt (DS) is listed as Threatened on the Federal level and Endangered on the State level. DS are 2- 3 inches (8 cm) long, slim bodied fish with a silver sheen. DS prefer shallow, fresh, or slightly brackish backwater sloughs and edge waters , with good water quality and substrate for spawning, and are generally 27 found in brackish waters below 25 degrees Celsius. The range of DS is restricted to the upper reaches of the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta Estuary. The habitat within the Project Footprint is unsuitable for delta smelt as there are no bodies of water onsite and there is no nexus to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary. No record of DS observation has been recorded anywhere in Tulare County in the CNDDB. Because of these reasons, no adverse impacts to DS are anticipated to occur during proposed construction activities.
2.6. Reptiles
2.6.1. Giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas)
Giant garter snake (GGS) is listed as Threatened on the Federal and the State level. GGS are at least 64 inches (162 cm) long, with a brownish olive background, a yellow stripe down the center of the back, and a light -colored stripe on either side. GGS historically ranged from Kern County to Butte County, but due to habitat degradation, this species is thought to no longer occur south of Fresno County. GGS are found primarily in marshes, sloughs, drainage canals, irrigation ditches, and prefer locations with vegetation close to water for basking. GGS use small mammal burrows and 4Creeks Riggin Avenue Initial Study 27
vegetation piles for cover during hotter weather. During the field survey, the Soar Biologist did not observe signs of GGS within the Project footprint or surrounding areas. There are no marshes or bodies of water and no small mammal burrows present within the Project Footprint to provide potentially suitable habitat features for GGS (Figure 3). CNDDB records do not contain any observations of GGS in Tulare County. Because of these reasons, no adverse impacts GGS are anticipated to occur during proposed construction activities.
GGS Habitat
During the field survey, no signs of GGS were observed in the Project footprint or surrounding areas.
In addition, there are no potential suitable habitat features on site for this species, such as the small mammal burrows or wetlands. No habitat occurs onsite for this species, aside from unvegetated upland roadside and disturbed unvegetated agricultural land. Potential impact to GGS is less than significant.
2.6.2. Blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia silus)
Blunt-nosed leopard lizard (BNLL) is listed as Endangered on the Federal and the State level. BNLL have a light background with dark gray -brown spotting, giving it an almost Giraffe -like appearance.
The body length of the BNLL ranges from 7 to 12 centimeters (3 to 5 inches), with a tail typically longer than the body. BNLL are found in the southern San Joaquin Valley and surrounding foothills and valleys. BNLL prefer flat areas with open space for running, including semi-arid grasslands, alkali flats, and washes. BNLL typically utilize shrubs and small mammal burrows for cover and shelter, and typically avoid densely vegetated areas. During the field survey, the Soar Biologist did not observe signs of BNLL within the Project Footprint or surrounding areas. The compacted and disturbed road shoulders and agricultural land shrubs and lacked shrubs and small mammal burrows, and thus do not provide suitable habitat for this BNLL ( Figures 3 & 11). CNDDB records do not contain any observations of BNLL in the Visalia 7.5 -minute quadrangle. According to CNDDB records, the most recent occurrence of this species in Tulare County was recorded in the Allensworth 7.5 -minute quadrangle, 32 miles southwest of the Project site in July 2019. Because of these reasons, no impacts to BNLL are anticipated to occur during proposed construction activities.
BNLL Habitat
During the field survey, no signs of BNLL were observed in the Project footprint or surrounding areas.
In addition, there are no potential suitable habitat features on site for this species. No small mammal burrows occur on the site. BNLL are known to utilize small mammal burrows as refugia, or to hibernate. The species is unlikely to occur.
2.7. Amphibians
2.7.1. California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii)
California red -legged frog (CRLF) is listed as Threatened on the Federal level and is considered a Species of Special Concern in California. CRLF are medium-sized frogs from 1.75 to 5.5 inches (4.4-
13.3 centimeters) long, with a slim waist, long legs, reddish brown , gray, or olive color with black flecks, a dark mask on the head, and red on the hind legs and lower belly. In the San Joaquin Valley, CRLF are not thought to occur south of Fresno County. CRLF are most commonly found in lowlands and foothills, primarily near ponds in humid forests, woodlands, grasslands, and coastal scrub, and prefer streamside locations with vegetative cover. During the field survey, the Soar Biologist did not observe signs of CRLF within the Project Footprint or surrounding areas. The compacted and disturbed upland characteristics of the Project Footprint provide low -quality dispersal habitat for CRLF. No breeding or refugia habitat, such as small mammal burrows or water bodies, or habitats 4Creeks Riggin Avenue Initial Study 28
characteristic of CRLF requirements are present within the Project Footprint. CNDDB records do not contain any observations of CRLF in Tulare County. Because of these reasons, no adverse impacts to CRLF are anticipated to occur during proposed construction activities.
CRLF Habitat
During the field survey, no signs of CRLF were observed in the Project footprint or surrounding areas.
In addition, no potential refugia, small burrows or grassland and wetland mosaics occur in the Project site. No suitable estivation, breeding or foraging habitat features occur on site for this species.
Though the Project site could be considered low quality upland dispersal habitat.
2.7.2. California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) California tiger salamander (CTS) is listed as Endangered in Santa Barbara and Sonoma Counties, and Threatened in the Central San Joaquin Valley. Adult CTS range in size from 15-22 centimeters (6 to 9 inches) long and have a dark background color with distinctive yellow spots. Juvenile CTS look much like adults but lack the yellow spots. Larval CTS are grayish green in color and have the appearance of tadpoles with obvious, external gills. CTS eggs are clear and are typically laid singly or in groups of three or four in shallow ponds. This endemic California species is found in grasslands, oak savannah woodlands, edges of mixed woodland, lower elevations of coniferous forests, and in heavily grazed fields along the Central California Coast and within the Central San Joaquin Valley.
However, CTS may breed in ditches where water is present for a long enough duration for eggs and larvae to metamorphose into adults. During the non -breeding season (approximately late May through early Novembe r), CTS live in small mammal burrows. During the field survey, the Soar Biologist did not observe any signs of CTS or habitat suitable for CTS within the Project Footprint or surrounding areas. In addition, there are minimal potential suitable habitat features on site for this species, as no small mammal burrows were observed in the maintained ROW and no wetlands or streams occur in the Project (Figure 3).
CNDDB records do not contain any observations of CTS in the Tulare 7.5-minute quadrangle.
According to CNDDB records, the nearest occurrence of this species in Tulare County was recorded in the Orange Cove North 7.5-minute quadrangle, 27 miles northeast of the Project site in May 2017.
CTS Habitat
During the field survey, no signs of CTS were observed in the Project footprint or surrounding areas. No potential suitable habitat features occur on site for this species. There is an absence of small mammal burrows throughout the site, and no ground squirrel colonies were observed. CTS are known to utilize small mammal burrows for refugia and/or to hibernate. No estivation/refugia, breeding, or foraging habitat occurs for this species within the APE and the APE is outside of any designated critical habitat for the species. For these reasons , no adverse impacts to CTS are anticipated to occur during proposed construction activities.
2.8. Birds
2.8.1. Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni)
Swainson’s Hawk (SWHA) is listed as Threatened on the State level. SWHAs favor open habitat for foraging, such as agricultural fields, pastures, and row crops. They nest in scattered stands of eucalyptus, willow, oak, cottonwood, and conifers. On occasion, SWHA will nest on a power pole or transmission towers. Nests are constructed with loose bundles of sticks and debris items.
Incubation period is approximately 35 days and nesting period is 17-22 days. The breeding season for this species begins in March and ends In September. During the field survey, the Soar Biologist did 4Creeks Riggin Avenue Initial Study 29
observe a large multi-trunk valley oak, Eucalyptus, olive and almond trees and power poles but not highly suitable habitat for SWHA within the Project Footprint or surrounding areas. The maintained commercial orchard and planted horticultural trees provide limited low -quality habitat potential within the Project Footprint.
There is one mature valley oak within the Project Footprint that may provide nesting opportunities, and the power poles located along the north side of Riggin Avenue provide limited nesting habitat.
The oak tree is between Riggins Avenue and the active orchard, so the potential for traffic and agricultural activities to disturb nest building and/or fledglings exists, and power poles are not considered suitable habitat for SWHA. CNDDB records do not contain any observations of SWHA in the Visalia 7.5-m inute quadrangle. According to CNDDB records, the nearest occurrence of this species in Tulare County was recorded in the Taylor Weir 7.5-minute quadrangle, 14 miles southwest of the Project site in July 2019. Because of these reasons, no adverse impacts to SWHA are a nticipated to occur during proposed construction activities.
2.9. Mammals
2.9.1. San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica)
The San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF) is listed as Threatened at the Federal level and Endangered at the State level. SJKF are petite, light- colored canids, approximately 20 inches (50 cm) in length, with bushy, black tipped tails, large ears, and pointed snouts. SJKF are fond of alkali meadows, playas, grassland communities, scrubland, and wetland communities in the San Joaquin Valley and adjoining foothills.
SJKF have adapted to human habitation and can also be found in more developed areas such as golf courses, airports, and residential areas. During the field survey, the Soar Biologist did not observe signs of SJKF within the Project footprint or surrounding areas. However, there are potentially suitable habitat features on site for this species, such as the low-quality potential upland dispersal habitat, and the concrete irrigation culverts present throughout the Footprint and surrounding agricultural areas (Figure 7).
4Creeks Riggin Avenue Initial Study 30
CNDDB records do not contain any observations of SJKF in the Visalia 7.5 -minute quadrangle since 1975 when a roadkill was recorded in July. Many other occurrences of San Joaquin kit fox occur in all of the quadrangles surrounding the project area, but most of them date from 1973 to 1975, while some are updated occurrences. According to CNDDB records, the nearest occurrence of this species in Tulare County was recorded in the Delano West 7.5 -minute quadrangle, approximately 50 miles south of the Project site in June 2004.
SJKF Habitat
During the field survey, no signs of SJKF were observed in the Project footprint or surrounding areas.
There are no potential suitable habitat features on site for this species. No small mammal burrows or California ground squirrel colonies were observed on or near the site. N o impacts to SJKF are anticipated to occur during proposed construction activities.
2.9.2. Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides)
Tipton kangaroo rat (TKR) is listed as Endangered at both the Federal and State level. TKR have light brown bodies averaging 10-11 centimeters (4 inches) in length, long rear legs, short front legs adapted for digging, long tufted tails averaging 12.5-13 (~5 inches) centimeters long, and large black eyes.
TKR inhabit saltbush scrub, sink scrub, and grassland habitats, from the floor of the San Joaquin Valley up to 300 feet in elevation, from north of Visalia, to south of Bakersfield, California. TKR are fossorial mammals whose burrows are typically less than three inches in diameter and are usually found at the base of shrubs. During the field survey, the Soar Biologist did not observe signs of TKR within the Project Footprint or surrounding areas. The species is unlikely to occur within the Project site, as no potential suitable habitat, such as vegetated shrublands and grasslands, or small mammal burrows occurs within the Footprint.
CNDDB records do not contain any observations of TKR in the Visalia 7.5-minute quadrangle.
According to CNDDB records, the nearest occurrence of this species in Tulare County was recorded in the Allensworth 7.5-minute quadrangle, 27 miles south of the Project site in August 2003. Because of these reasons, no adverse impacts to TKR are anticipated to occur during proposed construction activities.
TKR Habitat
During the field survey, no signs of TKR were observed in the Project footprint or surrounding areas.
However, there are no potential suitable habitat features on site for this species. No small mammal burrows occur on the site, because it is disturbed orchard and active agricultural land. No impacts to TKR are anticipated to occur as a result from proposed construction activities. Special status species observations and potential habitat findings are summarized in Table 3 below. 4Creeks Riggin Avenue Initial Study 31
Tabl
e 3 – Special Status Species Findings
Species Name
Species
Observed on
Project Site
Suitable Habitat
on Project Site
Vascular Plants
California Jewelflower
(Caulanthus californicus) No No
Hoover’s spurge
(Euphorbia hooveri) No No
San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass
(Orcuttia inaequalis) No No
San Joaquin adobe sunburst
(Pseudobahia peirsonii) No No
Crustaceans
vernal pool fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi) No No
Fish
Delta smelt
(Hypomesus transpacificus) No No
Herpefauna
California tiger salamander
(Ambystoma californiense) No No
blunt-nosed leopard lizard
(Gambelia silus) No No
California red-legged frog
(Rana draytonii) No No
giant garter snake
(Thamnophis gigas) No No
Birds
Swainson’s Hawk
(Buteo swainsoni) No Yes
Mammals
San Joaquin kit fox
(Vulpes macrotis mutica) No No
Fresno kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys nitratoides exilis) No No
Tipton kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides) No No
4Creeks Riggin Avenue Initial Study 32
Mitigation Measures:
MM BIO
– 1 Removal of the valley oak tree requires mitigation by paying a mitigation fee, or by performing in-kind mitigation, or by a combination of payment of mitigation fee and in -kind mitigation. Oak tree removal, and mitigation will be in accordance with the City of Visalia Oak Tree Mitigati on Policy , pursuant to Visalia Municipal Code sections 12.24.037 and 12.24.110.
Study Limitations
This Section has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted environmental methodologies, and contains all the limitations inherent in these methodologies. The Section documents site conditions that were observed during field reconnaissance and do not apply to future conditions. No other warranties, expressed or implied, are made as to the professional services provided under the terms of our contract and included in this Section.
City o
f Visalia.2020. City of Visalia - Valley Oak Ordinance Appendix C
Cultural Resources Assessment
USGS Visalia and Goshen 7.5’ topographic quadrangle;
14 total project acres; 14 acres surveyed
Keywords: Negative findings
Cultural Resources Assessment for the
Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk) Project,
Tulare County, California
Consuelo Y. Sauls
Prepared By
Taylored Archaeology
6083 N. Figarden Dr., Ste 616
Fresno, CA 93722
Prepared For
4Creeks, Inc.
324 S. Santa Fe St., Suite A
Visalia, CA 93292
November 2020
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk) Project ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
4Creeks, Inc. (4Creeks) is preparing an environmental analysis for the Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk) Project in the City of Visalia, California. The project is funded in part throug h the United States Economic Development Administration and therefore constitutes a federal undertaking. Taylored Archaeology was contracted by 4Creeks to conduct a cultural resources assessment for the project under the California Environmental Quality Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act as part of the overall environmental analysis.
The proposed Project will widen a one-mile stretch of Riggin Avenue between Kelsey Street and Shirk Avenue from a two -lane road to four -lane road with a central median and bike lanes. The right-of-way will be approximately 110 feet wide. The Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the Project was defined as the area of potential ground disturbance resulting from project construction activities. The total horizontal APE is approximately 14 acres and the vertical APE is approximately 20 feet below ground surface.
The Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center records search identified two prior cultural resource investigations, and no recorded cultural resources, within the Project APE. In addition, the search also determined that there were three prior investigations, and no recorded cultural resources, within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project APE (Appendix B).
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File search, archival research, and pedestrian survey resulted in negative findings for tribal or cultural resources within the APE.
Based on the results of the records search, there is a low probability of encoun tering cultural deposits.
Consistent with state statutes and regulations, Taylored Archaeology recommends that in the event of accidental discovery of unidentified archaeological deposits during development or ground - moving activities in the Project area, all work should be halted until a qualified archaeologist can identify the discovery and assess its significance.
If human remains are uncovered during construction, the Tulare County C oroner is to be notified to investigate the remains and arrange proper treatment and disposition. If the remains are identified on the basis of archaeological context, age, cultural associations, or biological traits to be those of a Native American, California Health and Safety Code 7050.5 and PRC 5097.98 require that the coroner notify the NAHC within 24 hours of discovery. The NAHC will then identify the Most Likely Descendent who will be afforded an opportunity to make recommendations regarding the treatment and disposition of the remains.
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk) Project iii
This page left intentionally blank.
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk) Project iv
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION.......................................................1
1.2 REGULATORY SETTING .....................................................................................1
1.2.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENT QUALITY ACT ...................................1
1.2.2 NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966 ......................2
1.2.3 SECTION 106 OF THE NHPA ...................................................................2
1.3 PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS ..................................................................3
1.4 REPORT STRUCTURE ..........................................................................................8 2 PROJECT SETTING ........................................................................................................9
2.1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................9
2.2 PREHISTORIC SETTING ......................................................................................9
2.3 ETHNOGRAPHY..................................................................................................11
2.4 HISTORIC SETTING ...........................................................................................11 3 METHODS .......................................................................................................................13
3.1 RECORDS SEARCH ............................................................................................13
3.2 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH .....................................................................................13
3.3 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH....................................................................13
3.4 PEDESTRIAN SURVEY ......................................................................................13 4 FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................14
4.1 RECORDS SEARCH ............................................................................................14
4.2 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH .....................................................................................14 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH................................................................................15
4.3 PEDESTRIAN SURVEY RESULTS ....................................................................16 5 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION ...................................................................20 6 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................21
APPENDICIES
A Personnel Qualifications
B Records Search Results
C Native American Outreach
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk) Project v
FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Project vicinity in Tulare County, California. ........................................................ 4 Figure 1-2 Project location on the USGS Goshen, CA 7.5-minute quadrangle. ...................... 5 Figure 1-3 Project location on the USGS Visalia, CA 7.5-minute quadrangle. ....................... 6 Figure 1-4 Aerial view of the APE showing survey coverage. ................................................ 7 Figure 4-1 Road aggregate on south side of West Riggin Ave, facing west. ......................... 17 Figure 4-2 Ground visibility on south side of West Riggin Ave, facing west........................ 17 Figure 4-3 Pistachio orchard and roadside oak tree on north side of West Riggin Ave, facing east. ....................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 4-4 Dirt ditch and concrete culvert at northwest corner of West Riggin Ave and North Shirk Road, facing south. ...................................................................................... 18 Figure 4-5 Wooden distribution line on north side of West Riggin Ave, facing east. ........... 19 Figure 4-6 Metal pipe corral fence on south side of West Riggin Ave, facing west. ............. 19
This page left intentionally blank.
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk) Project 1 1
INTRODUCTION
The City of Visalia (City) proposes to widen a one mile stretch of Riggin Avenue between Kelsey Street and Shirk Street (Project) to accommodate a 4-lane arterial street with a total right-of-way width of 110 feet. The purpose of the road widening is to accommodate increased traffic between the City of Visalia along its nort hern boundary and State Route 99 to the west. The Project is funded through local, state, and federal funds . The United States Economic Development Administration (EDA) is serving as the lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act, and the City of Visalia is serving as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Project is therefore subject to cultural resources and historical laws under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and CEQA.
4Creeks, Inc., as the prime contractor to the City for environmental compliance services, retained Taylored Archaeology to conduct a Phase I cultural resources assessment of the Project for compliance with the NHPA and CEQA.
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Project site is located along Riggin Avenue within the northwestern portion of the City of Visalia (Figure 1-1). The proposed Project consists of a one mile stretch of Riggin Avenue between Kelsey Street and Shirk Street. The proposed action includes the widening and reconstruction of 1 mile of existing roadway to widen Riggin Avenue to a 4 -lane arterial street with a total right -of- way width of 110 linear feet. Project improvements would include new bike lands, street lighting, a curbed median, fire hydrants, new street lighting, and curbs. The Project will additionally include relocation of 17 existing wood power poles, demolition of existing asphalt between Kelsey and Shirk Streets, and removal of road -side trees and some orchard trees within the Project Area of Potential Effects (APE).
The APE for the Project is defined as the area of potential ground disturbance resulting from project activities based upon the project description. The total horizontal APE is approximately 14 acres, and the vertical APE is approximately 20 feet below ground surface.
1.2 REGULATORY SETTING
1.2.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENT QUALITY ACT
Pursuant to CEQA, a historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources. Historical resources may include, but are not limited to, “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically or archaeologically significant” (PRC §5020.1[j]). In addition, a resource included in a local register of historical resources or identify as significant in a local surv ey conducted in accordance with the state guidelines are also considered historic resources under California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1.
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk) Project 2 According to CEQA guidelines §15064.5 (a)(3), criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources includes the following:
(A) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
(B) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. (C) Embodies the dis tinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
(D) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
1.2.2 NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. 470 ET SEQ.) was enacted in 1966 and created a national policy of historic preservation. The law established several programs, administered by the Secretary of the Interior, to encourage the achievement of preservation goals at local, state, and federal levels. The NHPA authorized the creation and expansion of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), formed the position of State Historic Preserv ation Officer (SHPO), allowed for the creation of State Review Boards to set up methods for local governments to enact the NHPA at a local level, assisted Native American tribes with preserving their heritage, and established the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP).
The NHPA established criteria for determining if a historic property is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. These criteria are set forth in 36 CFR 60.4 as follows:
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and (a) that are associated with eve nts that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
(b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or (c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
(d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information i mportant in prehistory or history.
1.2.3 SECTION 106 OF THE NHPA
Section 106 of NHPA states that any federal agency with direct or indirect jurisdiction over federally assisted or proposed federal action will take into account the effect the action will have on any historic property that is on, or eligible to be included in, the NRHP. The NHPA provides
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk) Project 3 the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the relevant SHPO the opportunity to provide comment on the federal action in regard to potential impacts to historic properties.
1.3 PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
Archaeologist Consuelo Y. Sauls (M.A.), a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA 41591505), served as Principal Investigator, conducting all cultural resource tasks for the Project study. Ms. Sauls meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Professional Qualifications in Archaeology. Statement of Qualifications for key personnel is provided in Appendix A.
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk) Project 4 Figure 1-1 Project vicinity in Tulare County, California.
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk) Project 5 Figure 1-2 Project location on the USGS Goshen, CA 7.5-minute quadrangle.
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk) Project 6 Figure 1-3 Project location on the USGS Visalia, CA 7.5-minute quadrangle.
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk) Project 7 Figure 1-4 Aerial view of the APE showing survey coverage.
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk) Project 8 1.4 REPORT STRUCTURE
In order to comply with California regulations for CEQA and Section 106 of NHPA, the following specific tasks were completed: (1) requesting a records search from the Southern San Joaquin Information Center (SSJVIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), at California State University, Bakersfield; (2) requesting a Sacred Lands File Search and list of interested parties from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and initiating outreach to local Native American individuals and tribal representatives; (3) conducting an archaeological pedestrian survey of the APE, and (4) preparing this technical report.
Taylored Archaeology prepared this report following the California Office of Historic Preservation standards in the 1990 Archaeological Resources Management Report Recommended Contents and Format. Chapter 1 includes the Project description, the Project APE, the state and federal regulations and identifies the key personnel involved in this report. Chapter 2 presents the Project setting, including the natural, prehistoric, historic, and ethnohistoric background for the Project area. Chapters 3 and 4 describe the methods and findings of the archival studies, Native American outreach, and pedestrian survey. Chapter 5 summarizes the Project findings and offers management recommendations. Chapter 6 is a bibliography of references cited within this report.
The report also contains the following appendices: Qualifications of key personnel (Appendix A), the CHRIS records search results (Appendix B), and Taylored Archaeology’s nongovernmental Native American outreach (Appendix C).
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk) Project 9 2
PROJECT SETTING
2.1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
The Project area is approximately 400 feet above sea level on the open flat plains of the Southern San Joaquin Valley. The San Joaquin Valley is a comprised of structural trough created approximately 65 million years ago and is filled with nearly 6 miles of sediment (Bull 1964). The San Joaquin can be split between the S an Joaquin River hydrologic area and the Tulare Lake Drainage Basin. Tulare County is located within the latter of the two hydrologic units. The Kaweah, Tule, Kern, and Kings rivers flowed into large inland lakes with no outflow except in high flood events , in which the lakes would flow from through the Fresno Slough into the San Joaquin River. The largest of these inland lakes was the Tulare Lake, which occupied a vast area of Tulare and Kings Counties.
The Project is two miles south of the of the south br anch of the Saint John’s River, which is a distributary of the Kaweah River. Before the appearance of agriculture in the nineteenth century, the Project location would have been comprised of prairie grasslands with scatter oak tree savannas near the foothi lls, and along the various streams and drainages (Preston 1981). Riparian environments would also have been present along various waterways, including drainages and marshes. Native vegetation likely would have consisted of needle grasses and other perennia l bunchgrasses before the introduction of non-native species in the 1800s.
The valley floor of the region was largely dominated by marshlands, lakes, and annual grasslands.
These habitats provided a lush environment for large animals, including various migratory birds and other waterfowl, grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos californicus ), tule elk ( Cervus sp.), pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), black bear (Ursus americanus), and mountain lion ( Puma concolor) (Preston 1981). Native trees and plants observed in the Project vicinity include various blue, live, and white oaks ( Quercus sp.), cottonwood (Populus aegiros), and willow (Salix sp.). The introduction of agriculture to region resulted in large animals being forced out of their habitat. Common land mammals now include valley coyote ( Canis latrans), bobcat (Lynx rufus), gray fox, kit fox (Vulpes macrotis), and rabbits (Leporidae). Rivers and lakes throughout the valley provide habitat for freshwater fish, including rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Sacramento sucker (Catostomidae sp.), and Sacramento perch (Archoplites interruptus), (Preston 1981).
2.2 PREHISTORIC SETTING
To better understand the past, archaeologists develop models of prehistoric resource chronologies and description of lifestyles based on data collected at the archaeological sites they investigate.
Models of prehistoric life patterns are developed from both archaeological and ethnographic research. Within archaeology, models of prehistoric lifestyles are bas ed on data collected from archaeological sites. The Southern San Joaquin Valley is of one of the least understood areas within California (Rosenthal et al. 2007). This is largely due to the valley floor being filled with thick alluvial deposits, and from h uman activity largely disturbing much of the valley floor due to a century and a half of agricultural use (Dillon 2002; Siefken 1999). Much of the early to middle Cultural Resources Assessment for the Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk) Project 10 Holocene archaeological sites may have been as deep as 10 meters due to millennia of erosion and alluvial deposits from the western Sierras (Moratto 1984).
Agricultural activities have heavily disturbed and changed the landscape of the Southern San Joaquin Valley, from the draining of marshes and the vanishing of the extensive Tulare Lake, to grading nearly the entire valley for agricultural operations (Garone 2011). These activities have impacted or scattered much of the shallow surface deposits and mounds throughout the valley (Rosenthal et al 2007). Riddell suggested that potentially as much as 90 percent of all Central California archaeological sites have been destroyed (Riddell 2002).
The cultural traits and chronologies which are summarized below are largely based upon information discussed in multiple sources, including Bennyhoff and Fredri ckson (Fredrickson 1973, 1974), Garfinkel (2015), McGuire and Garfinkel (1980), Moratto (1984), and Rosenthal et al. (2007).
The Paleo-Indian Period (13,500-10,600 cal B.P.) was largely represented by ephemeral lake sites which were characterized by atlatl and spear projectile points. Around 14,000 years ago, California was largely a cooler and wetter place, but with the retreat of continental Pleistocene glaciers, California largely experienced a warming and drying red. Lakes filled with glacial meltwater were located in the valley floor and used by populations of now extinct large game animals. A few prehistoric sites were discovered near the southwestern shore of Tulare Lake, but none were located near the Project Area (Garfinkel 2015). Foragers appear to have operated in small groups which migrated on a regular basis.
During the Lower Archaic Period (10,500 -7450 cal B.P.), climate change created a largely different environment which lead to the creation of larger alluvial fans and flood plains. Most of the archaeological records of the prior period wound up being buried by geological processes.
During this time, cultural patterns appear to have emerged between the foothill and valley populations of the local people. The foothill sites were often categoriz ed by dense flaked and ground stone assemblages, while the valley sites were instead characterized by a predominance of crescents and stemmed projectile points. Variations in consumption patterns emerged as well, with the valley sites more marked by consum ption of waterfowl, mussels, and freshwater fish, while the foothills sites saw an increase in nuts, seeds, and a more narrowly focused diet than the valley sites.
The Middle Archaic (7450-2500 cal B.P.) saw an increase in semi-permanent villages along river and creek settings, with more permanent sites located along lakes with a more stable supply of water and wildlife. Due to the warmer and drier weather of this period, many lakes within the valley dramatically reduced in size, while some vanished complet ely (Garone 2011). Cultural patterns during this time saw an increase in stone tools, while a growth in shell beads, ornaments, and obsidian evidence an extensive and ever-growing long-distance trade network. Little is known of cultural patterns in the valley during the Upper Archaic (2500-850), but large village structures appeared to be more common around local rivers. An overall reduction of projectile point size suggests changing bow and arrow technologies. Finally, the Emergent Period (850 cal B.P. - Historic Era) was generally marked by an ever-increasing specialization in tools, and the bow and arrow generally replaced the dominance of the dart and atlatl. Cultural traditions ancestral to those recorded during ethnographic research in the early 1900s are identifiable.
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk) Project 11 2.3 ETHNOGRAPHY
While the prehistoric record of the San Joaquin Valley has not been extensively studied, the ethnography of the region has been intensively research. The Project area is located within the ethnographic territory of the Penutian-speaking Yokuts tribal groups, who occupied the southern San Joaquin Valley and the surrounding Sierra Nevada. The Yokuts are a sub-group of the Penutian language that covers much of coastal and central California and Oregon (Callaghan 1958). The Yokuts language contained multiple dialects spoken throughout the region, though many of them were mutually understandable (Merriam 1904). The Yokuts were generally divided into three major groups, the Northern Valley Yokuts, the Southern Valley Yokuts, and the Foothill Yokuts.
The Yokuts have been extensively researched and recorded by ethnographers, including Powers (1877), Kroeber (1925), Gifford and Schenck (1926, 1929), Gayton (1930, 1945), Driver (1937), Harrington (1957), Latta (1977), and Wallace ( 1978). Much of the research from these ethnographers focuses on the central Yokuts tribes due to the northernmost tribes being impacted by Euro-Americans during the California Gold Rush of the mid 1800s, and by the southernmost tries often being removed an d relocated by the Spanish to various Bay Area or coastal mission.
The central Yokuts tribes, and especially the western Sierra Nevada foothill tribes, were the most intact at the time of ethnographic study.
Based upon Kroeber’s map of Southern and Centr al Yokuts (1925: Plate 47), the Project area is likely within the Tulamni Yokuts territory. The main village for this area was Waitatahulul, which was 7 miles north of the City of Tulare on the bank of Packwood Creek, a distributary of the Kaweah River (Kroeber 1925). Primary Yokuts villages were typically located along lakeshores and major stream courses, with scattered secondary or temporary camps and settlements located near gathering areas in the foothills. Yokuts were organized into groups originally designated as tribelets by Kroeber, with one or more linked villages and smaller settlements within a territory (Kroeber 1925). Designation of these units as ‘tribelets’ is often viewed as pejorative by many Native Americans, and for the remainder of this report will be referred to as ‘local tribes’ instead. Each local tribe was a land-owning group that was organized around a central village, and shared common territory and ancestry. Most local tribe populations ranged from 150 to 500 people (Kroeber 1925). These local tribes were often led by a chief, who was often advised by a variety of assistants including the winatum, who served as a messenger and assistant chief (Gayton 1930).
Prior to Euro -American contact, the Yokuts were one of the densest populations of Native Americans in western North America due to the substantial natural resources surrounding Tulare Lake (Cook 1955). Six Native American tribal groups are currently associated with the Project area, including the Tubatulabals of Kern Valley, Wukasache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band, the Kern Valley Indian Community, the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe, and the Tule River Indian Tribe.
2.4 HISTORIC SETTING
While the California coast saw European contact as early as the 1500s, the San Joaquin valley did not experience contact until the early 1800s (Starr 2007). The initial excursions to the valley were for exploration such as those led by Lieutenant Bariel Moraga in 1806, but also to find sites for suitable missions and to track down Nati ve Americans fleeing the coastal missions (Cook 1960).
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk) Project 12 Subsequent expeditions were also sent to pursue outlaws from the coast who would often flee to the valley for safety. The first Euro -Americans to set foot in what would become modern -day Tulare County were Jedediah and Pegleg Smith (Menefee and Dodge 1913). As the valley was still relatively lawless in the 1830s, those drawn to it were often either trappers like Jedediah Smith or horse thieves like Pegleg Smith (Clough and Secrest 1984). In fact, horse and other livestock theft was so rampant that ranching operations on the Rancho Laguna de Tache by the Kings River and Rancho del San Joaquin Rancho along the San Joaquin River could not be properly established (Cook 1962). With the end of the Mexican -American War and the beginning of the gold rush in 1848, the San Joaquin Valley became more populated with ranchers and prospectors. By 1850, California became a state and Tulare County was established in 1853.
The City of Visalia is one of the oldest cities w ithin the Southern San Joaquin Valle y and was founded in 1852. By the mid-1850s the town of Visalia was a major station along the Butterfield Overland Mail state route as it traveled north from Los Angeles to Stockton (Helmich 2008; OHP 2019). During the first few decades, Visalia was a supply center for nearby gold rushes, and had an agricultural economy based on livestock (Dyet t and Bhatia 2014). The Southern Pacific Railroad was extended from Fresno into Tulare County in the early 1870s and brought a population to towns such as Goshen that served as a regional stop (ESA 2010). With it, the rail line brought an increased in agri culture and farms that clashed with existing ranching operations in the local area. Escalating conflicts and livestock disputes between ranchers and farmers lead to the “No Fence Law” in 1874, which forced ranchers to pay for crop and property damage cause d by their cattle (Ludeke 1980). With the passage of this law and the expansion of irrigation systems, predominant land use in the 1870s switched from grazing to farming (Mitchell 1976). This led to the beginning of the vast change of the San Joaquin Valley from native vegetation and grasslands to irrigated crops (Varner and Stuart 1975).
Water conveyance systems were developed throughout the region in order to minimize flooding and to divert water to the dryer areas (PID 2012). Surface waters and local wells were only able to satisfy the water demands of the valley for so long, and in 1911 California created the State Reclamation Board to solve water issues in the valley. Various reports were commissioned and 12 years later the California State Water Plan was proposed (Stene 2015). The Central Valley Project was approved in 1933, but funds were stalled until funded by the Rivers and Harbors Act in 1937.
Construction on the Central Valley Project began soon after and continued until the mid -1950s (Stene 2015) . One cornerstone of this project was the Friant -Kern Canal (FKC), located immediately east of the study area. The FKC, built between 1945 and 1951, is over 150 miles long and represents one of the largest lined canals in the western US (Hundley 2001). Cre ation of the FKC brought new opportunities for irrigation to the region and led to the creation of new irrigation districts.
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk) Project 13 3
METHODS
3.1 RECORDS SEARCH
Consuelo Sauls conducted a records search from the SSJVIC of the CHRIS at California State University in Bakersfield, California on October 26, 2020. The records search encompassed the Project area and all the land within a 0.5 -mile radius of the Project. Sources consulted included archaeological site and survey base maps, historical United States Geological S urvey ( USGS) topographic maps, reports of previous investigations, cultural resource records (DPR forms) as well as listings of the Historic Properties Directory of the Office of Historic Preservation, General Land Office Maps, Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, and the California Inventory of Historic Resources (Appendix B). This records search had two primary purposes : (1) to identify prior cultural resource investigations completed in or near the Project area, and (2) to identify prehistoric or historical cultural resources that were previously recorded within the Project area.
3.2 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH
Taylored Archaeology reviewed topographic maps from historical collections of the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) and historic aerial photographs, Google Maps , and Google Earth to identify the history of land use and change in the Project area.
3.3 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH
On October 26, 2020, Consuelo Sauls sent an e-mail to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) requesting a search of its Sacred Lands File and the contact information for local Native American tribal representatives who may have an interest in sharing information about the Project area and surrounding area. The NAHC responded on November 9, 2020, with its search find ings and attached a list of Native American tribes and individuals culturally affiliated with the Project area. Consuelo Sauls sent a letter describing the Project to each tribal representative and asking for input regarding cultural resources or tribal cu ltural resources in the Project area. The letters were sent to the individuals listed in Appendix C via USPS on November 10, 2020. Sending letters and recording responses received are part of the standard tribal outreach best practices for cultural resources reports and is not intended to serve the purpose of satisfying Assembly Bill (AB) 52 or Section 106 government-to-government Native American tribal consultation. A record of all correspondence with the NAHC and tribal contacts is included in Appendix C.
3.4 PEDESTRIAN SURVEY
On November 7, 2020, Archaeologist Consuelo Sauls conducted a field survey of the 14 -acre Project APE to identify the presence of archaeological resources . Visible landmarks, plan maps and Locus Map application were used for navigation to locate and survey the Project area. Ms.
Sauls photographed the survey area using an iPhone 11 Pro digital camera and recorded location data using the Locus Map application . Ms. Sauls recorded her observations on a Survey Field Record and compiled a Photographic Record.
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk) Project 14 4
FINDINGS
4.1 RECORDS SEARCH
The records search was conducted by staff of SSJVIC and the results were provided to Taylored Archaeology on November 2, 2020 (Records Search File No. 20 -387; Appendix B) . The results indicated that there are no cultural resources (prehistoric or historic) recorded within the Project APE and also that there are no cultural resources within a 0.5 -mile radius of the Projec t APE. In addition, the SSJVIC also reported two prior investigations were conducted within the Project APE and three prior investigations were conducted within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project APE.
4.2 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH
Available historic aerial photograph coverage of the site began in 1969, and the first available USGS map covering the APE began in 1926. West Riggin Avenue appeared on aerial photographs starting in 1969, and on historic topographic maps starting in 1926. A ditch appeared within the APE along the western edge of North Shirk Road starting with the 1971 USGS topographic map.
Starting in aerial photographs from 1994, the dirt ditch also ran west within the APE from North Shirk Road along the north side of West Riggin Avenue for approximately 0.5 miles to the west before ending at a tree -lined dirt road. The western running ditch no longer appear ed in aerial photographs after 2018.
A concrete culvert at the northwestern corner of West Riggin Avenue and North Shirk Road appeared on aerial maps starting in 2009. A livestock corral, with approximately 375 feet of metal pipe fencing within the APE , on the south side of West Riggin Avenue first appeared in aerial photographs starting in 1994. Additionally, a wood pole distribution line and a wood pole subtransmission line were identified within the APE on the north side of West Riggin Avenue.
Both lines only appeared on aerial photographs starting in 2004. The distribution line ran east and west within the APE for one mile on the north side of West Riggin Avenue. The subtransmission line appeared within the APE only on the northwestern corner of West Riggin Avenue and North Shirk Street. A review of Google Street View photographs dated April 2019, and the California Energy Infrastructure Map (California Energy Commission 2020) identify the subtransmission line as the 66 kilovolt (kV) Oakgrove – Riverway subtransmission line.
Based upon the archival research, the dirt ditch, concrete culvert and corral metal pipe fence appeared to be less than 50 years old and therefore are generally considered not eligible for listing in the NRHP. While the exact age of the wood pole distribution and subtransmission lines along the north side of West Riggin Avenue were unable to be determined based upon historic topographic maps and aerial photographs, both lines were reviewed against Southern California Edison (SCE) guidance under the 2015 Historic-Era Electrical Infrastr ucture Management Program. SCE guidance states wood pole subtransmission or distribution line structures are often less than 50 years old, and for the rare wood pole lines older than 50 years old , continual replacement of parts and the common and indistinc tive nature of the lines “disqualify them as potentially National Register eligible” (Tinsley Beker et al. 2015). Therefore, the aforementioned structures are not considered eligible for the NRHP under the NHPA.
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk) Project 15 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH
In a November 9, 2020 response to Taylored Archaeology’s request for information, the NAHC stated that a search of the Sacred Lands File did not indicate the presence of resources in the immediate Project area or surrounding 0.5 -mile radius (see Appendix C). The NAHC supplied a list of tribal representatives and recommended that Taylored Archaeology contact the following representatives for information regarding Native American cultural resources in the study locale:
▪ Chairperson Elizabeth D. Kipp of the Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians; ▪ Tribal Chair Benjamin Charley Jr. of the Dunlap Band of Mono Indians; ▪ Tribal Liaison Dirk Charley of the Dunlap Band of Mono Indians ▪ Secretary Julie Turner of Kern Valley Indian Community; ▪ Chairperson Robert Robinson of the Kern Valley Indian Community; ▪ Brandy Kendricks of the Kern Valley Indian Community; ▪ Chairperson Leo Sisco of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe; ▪ Tribal Chairperson Robert L. Gomez, Jr. of the Tubatulabals of Kern Valley; ▪ Chairperson Neil Peyron of the Tule River Indian Tribe; and ▪ Chairperson Kenneth Woodrow of the Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band.
On November 10 , 2020, Consuelo Sauls sent a letter describing the Project to each of the individuals identified in the NAHC response letter. Follow -up contact by e -mail was completed on November 12, 2020 and telephone calls were placed on November 18, 2020 to confirm receipt of the letter and gather any information tribal representatives may want to share about resources in the Project area or general vicinity.
Elizabeth D. Kipp of the Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians replied on behalf of Big Sandy Rancheria that they have no comme nts or concerns that is in relation to the Project.
However, they do request that at any time, any discovery of cultural significance, at a minimum they be notified.
Dirk Charley, Tribal Liaison of the Dunlap Band of Mono Indians, replied on behalf of the Dunlap Band of Mono Indians that they have no comment regarding projects outside the band’s traditional lands. Their traditional lands generally include only lands within the Sierra Nevada near Fresno and Tulare Counties above 2,000-foot elevation.
Samantha McCarty, Cultural Specialist II of the Santa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe replied on behalf of Chairperson Leo Sisco that the Tribe requests an archaeological records search and cultural resources survey be done before any ground dis turbance. The tribe also requested to be notified of the results from the records sea rch and survey, and also if any discoveries are made Cultural Resources Assessment for the Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk) Project 16 during any ground disturbance related to the project. Because Ms. McCarty replied after the survey had been conducted, Consuelo Sauls informed Ms. McCarty the results of the survey , NAHC Sacred Lands file search, and the SSJVIC records search.
No other responses were received.
4.3 PEDESTRIAN SURVEY RESULTS
On November 7 , 2020, Taylored Archaeology conducted a n archaeological pedestrian survey within the 14-acre Project APE along West Riggin Avenue . Field recording and photo documentation of features and the Project APE was completed. A series of overview photographs was taken to document the current conditions. Soils consisted of light brown sandy loam alongside the roadway, and an imported road base consisting of crushed aggregate and chalk (Figure 4-1).
The ground surface within the APE was nearly completely bare with little to no vegetation, affording clear 98 percent ground visibility (Figure 4-2). The Project APE is located within the greater alluvial fan of the St. John’s River, a distributary o f the Kaweah River. Vegetation consisted of mature pistachio trees along the northern boundary of the APE , and occasional roadside oak, palm, and eucalyptus trees (Figure 4-3). No water sources or flowing water was observed within the APE. Surrounding land uses included orchards, developed commercial uses, a dairy farm, and a few rural residences. Several commercial properties were under active construction at the time of the survey.
Within the APE, West Riggin Avenue consisted of a paved asphalt two lane road with no sidewalks, gutters, curbs, or other improvements. An approximately 0.5 -meter-deep dirt ditch running north and south was observed at the western boundary of the APE at the intersection of West Riggin Avenue and North Shirk Street. The ditch was located on the western edge of North Shirk Avenue and terminated in a concrete culvert running south under West Riggin Avenue. The culvert terminated at the southwest corner of the intersection, and the ditch did not continue any further south (Figure 4-4).
A distribution line ran east and west along the north side of West Riggin Avenue within the APE.
At the eastern boundary of the APE, the distribution line connect ed into the 66 kilovolt (kV) Oakgrove-Riverway subtransmission line. Both the distribution line and 66 k V subtransmission consisted of wooden poles (Figure 4-5). Approximately 375 feet of a metal pipe fence of a goat corral was also observed within the APE (Figure 4-6).
No cultural resources (e.g. isolated artifac ts, features, or archaeological sites) were identified within the Project APE during the survey.
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk) Project 17 Figure 4-1 Road aggregate on south side of West Riggin Ave, facing west.
Figure 4-2 Ground visibility on south side of West Riggin Ave, facing west.
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk) Project 18 Figure 4-3 Pistachio orchard and roadside oak tree on north side of West Riggin Ave, fa cing east.
Figure 4-4 Dirt ditch and concrete culvert at northwest corner of West Riggin Ave and North Shirk Road, facing south.
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk) Project 19 Figure 4-5 Wooden distribution line on north side of West Riggin Ave, facing east.
Figure 4-6 Metal pipe corral fence on south side of West Riggin Ave, facing west.
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk) Project 20 5
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
Taylored Archaeology conducted a cultural resources assessment for the Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk) Project. The City of Visalia will widen Riggin Avenue to a four-lane road with a central median and bike lanes. The APE for the Project was defined as the area of potential ground disturbance r esulting from project construction activities. The total horizontal APE is approximately 14 acres and the vertical APE is approximately 20 feet below ground surface.
The SSJVIC records search identified two previous investigations and no cultural resources were recorded within the Project APE. In addition, the search also determined that there were three investigations, but no cultural resources were recorded within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project APE (Appendix B).
The NAHC Sacred Lands File search, archival research, and pedestrian survey resulted in negative findings for tribal or cultural resources within the APE. Based on the results of the records search, there is a low probability of encountering cultural deposits.
Consistent with state statutes and regulations, Taylored Archaeology recommends that in the event of accidental discovery of unidentified archaeological deposits during development or ground - moving activities in the Project area, all work within the immediate vicinity of the discovery should be halted until a qualified archaeologist can identify the discovery and assess its significance.
If human remains are uncovered during construction, the Tulare County Coroner is to be notified to investigate the remains and arrange proper treatment and disposition. If the remains are identified on the basis of archaeological context, age, cultural associations, or biological traits to be those of a Native American, California Health and Safety Code 7050.5 and PRC 5097.98 require that the coroner notify the NAHC within 24 hours of discovery. The NAHC will then identify the Most Likely Descendent who will be afforded an opportunity to make recommendations regarding the treatment and disposition of the remains.
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk) Project 21 6
REFERENCES
Bull, William B.
1964 Geomorphology of Segmented Alluvial Fans in Western Fresno County, California.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 352 -E. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Callaghan, Catherine A.
1958 California Penutian: History and Bibliography. International Journal of American Linguistics. 24(3):189-194.
California Energy Commission
2020 California Energy Infrastructure Map. https://cecgis-caenergy.opendata.arcgis .com/app/california-electric-infrastructure-app. Accessed November 20, 2020.
Cook, Sherburne F.
1955 The Aboriginal Population of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Anthropological Records 16:31–80. University of California, Berkeley.
Dillon, Brian D.
2002 California Paleo-Indians: Lack of Evidence, or Evidence of a Lack? In Essays in California Archaeology: A Memorial to Franklin Fenenga, edited by William J.
Wallace and Francis A. Riddell, pp. 110–128. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility No. 60. Berkeley.
Driver, Harold E.
1937 Cultural Elements Distribution: VI, Southern Sierra Nevada. University of California Anthropological Records 1(2):53–154.
Dyett and Bhatia
2014 Visalia General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. August.
Fredrickson, David A.
1973 Early Cultures of the North Coast Ranges, California. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.
1974 Cultural Diversity in Early Central California: A View from the North Coast Ranges.
Journal of California Anthropology 1(1):41-54.
Garfinkel, Alan P.
2015 Archaeological Background and Cultural Sequence for The San Joaquin, Central California. Electronic document,
https://www.academia.edu/14721089/ArchaeologicalBackgroundfor theSanJoaquinValleyCentralCalifornia, accessed July 13, 2020. Academia.edu
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk) Project 22 Garone, Philip
2011 The Fall and Rise of the Wetlands of California’s Great Central Valley. University of the Press, Berkeley.
Gayton, Anna H.
1930 Yokuts-Mono Chiefs and Shamans. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 24(8):361–420.
1945 Yokuts and Western Mono Social Organization. American Anthropologist 47(3):409–426.
Gifford, E.W., ad W. Egbert Schenck
1926 Archaeology of the Southern San Joaquin Valley, California. Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 23(1).
1929 Archaeology of the Northern San Joaquin Valley. Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 25(4).
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of California Indians. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78, Washington, D.C.
Latta, Frank F.
1977 Handbook of Yokuts Indians. Bear State Books, Santa Cruz, California.
Merriam, Hart C.
1904 Distribution of Indian Tribes in the Southern Sierra and Adjacent Parts of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Science 19(494):912-917.
Powers, Stephen
1877 Tribes of California. Washington Press, Washington, D.C.
Preston, William L.
1981 Vanishing Landscapes: Land and Life in the Tulare Lake Basin. Olympic Marketing Corp, Hopkins.
Riddell, Francis A.
2002 The Status of San Joaquin Valley Archaeological. In Essays in California Archaeology: A Memorial to Franklin Fenenga edited by William J. Wallace and Francis A. Riddell, pp. 55-61. University of California Archaeological Research Facility, Contribution Number 60. Berkeley.
Rosenthal, Jeffrey S., Gregory G. White, and Mark Q. Sutton 2007 The Central Valley: A View from the Catbirds’s Seat. In California Prehistory:
Colonization, Cultural, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A.
Klar. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk) Project 23 Tinsley Becker, Wendy L., Audry Williams, Thomas Jackson, and Adam Sriro. 2015 Historic-Era Electric Infrastructure Management Program: A Program for the Identification, Review, Exemption, and Treatment of Generating Facilities, Transmission Lines, Subtransmission Lines, Distribution Lines, and Substations within the Southern California Edison Company’s Service Territory. Southern California Edison, Rosemead, California.
Siefken, Nelson.
1999 Archaeology of the Redfeldt Mound (CA-KIN-66), Tulare Basin, California. M.A.
Thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Bakersfield.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
2018 Goshen, California, Quadrangle Map. 7.5-minute series. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
2018 Visalia, California, Quadrangle Map. 7.5-minute series. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado.
Wallace, William J.
1978 Southern Valley Yokuts. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, California.
Ed. Robert F. Heizer, pp. 448-461. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk) Project 24 APPENDIX A
Personnel Qualifications
Consuelo Sauls, M.A., RPA 41591505 [email protected] Archaeologist 559.797.1572
6083 N. Figarden Dr., Ste. 616, Fresno, CA 93722
Professional Experience
2019-2020 Principal Investigator, Taylored Archaeology
2018–2019 Staff Archaeologist, Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Fresno, California
2016–2018 Principal Investigator, Soar Environmental Consulting, Inc., Fresno, California
2015 Archivist/Database Technician, Development and
Conservation Management, Inc., Laguna Beach,
California
2013 Laboratory Research Assistant, Durham University
Archaeology Department and Archaeology Museum,
Durham, England, UK
2011–2012 Laboratory Technician (volunteer), University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
2008–2009 Laboratory Technician (intern), California State University, Fresno
2008 Field School, California State University, Fresno
Technical Qualifications
Ms. Sauls meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards as an archaeologist. She has conducted pedestrian surveys, supervised Extended Phase I survey, authored t echnical reports, and completed the Section 106 process with the State Historic Preservation Officer and Tribal Historic Preservation Officer. Her experience includes data recovery excavation at Western Mono sites and processing recovered artifacts in the laboratory as well as conducting archival research about prehistory and ethnography of Central California. Ms. Sauls has authored and contributed to technical and letter reports in compliance with of the National Historical Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). She also has supported NHPA tribal consultation and responded to Assembly Bill 52 tribal comments. Ms. Sauls also has an extensive background supervising laboratory processing, cataloging, and conser vation of prehistoric and historical archaeological collections. In addition, she worked with the Rock Art Heritage Group in the management, preservation, and presentation of rock art in museums throughout England, including a thorough analysis of the Brit ish Museum’s rock art collections. At Durham University Archaeology Museum, Ms. Sauls processed the excavated skeletal remains of 30 individuals from the seventeenth century • So
ciety for California Archaeology
• So
ciety for American Archaeology
• Ca
lifornia Rock Art Foundation
Pr
ofessionals
• As
sociation of Environmental
Professional Affiliations
Ar
chaeologist 41591505
• Re
gistered Professional
Registrations/Certifications
St
ate University, Fr
esno, 2009
• B.
A., Anthropology, California
of
Durham, 2014
• M.A
., Archaeology, University
Education
• 12
Ye
ars of Experience
• La
boratory management
• Ro
ck art recordation and analysis
• Pr
ehistoric archaeology
Areas of Expertise
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk) Project 25 APPENDIX B
Records Search Results
11/2/2020
Consuelo Sauls
Taylored Archaeology
6083 N. Figarden Drive, Suite 616
Fresno, CA 93722
Re: Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk) Project
Records Search File No.: 20-387
The Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center received your record search request for the project area referenced above, located on the Goshen and Visalia USGS 7.5’ quads. The following reflects the results of the records search for the project area and the 0.5 mile radius:
As indicated on the data request form, the locations of r esources and reports are provided in the following format: ☒ custom GIS maps ☐ GIS data
Resources within project area: None
Resources within 0.5 mile radius: None
Reports within project area: TU-00041, 01190
Reports within 0.5 mile radius: TU-00628, 01069, 01149
Note: Mapped report locations were not included per the Data Request Form.
Resource Database Printout (list): ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed Resource Database Printout (details): ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed Resource Digital Database Records: ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed Report Database Printout (list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (details): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Digital Database Records: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Record Copies: ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed ☐ not available Report Copies: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed ☐ not available Note: PDFs for negative reports were omitted, per the Data Request Form.
OHP Built Environment Resources Directory: ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility: ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed CA Inventory of Historic Resources (1976): ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed
Caltrans Bridge Survey: Not available at SSJVIC; please see http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaint/historic.htm Ethnographic Information: Not available at SSJVIC
Historical Literature: Not available at SSJVIC
Historical Maps: Not available at SSJVIC; please see http://historicalmaps.arcgis.com/usgs/
Local Inventories: Not available at SSJVIC
GLO and/or Rancho Plat Maps: Not available at SSJVIC; please see http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/search/default.aspx#searchTabIndex=0&searchByTypeIndex=1 and/or http://www.oac.cdlib.org/view?docId=hb8489p15p;developer=local;style=oac4;doc.view=items Shipwreck Inventory: Not available at SSJVIC; please see http://www.slc.ca.gov/Info/Shipwrecks.html
Soil Survey Maps: Not available at SSJVIC; please see http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
Please forward a copy of any resulting reports from this project to the office as soon as possible. Due to the sensitive nature of archaeological site location data, we ask that you do not include resource location maps and resource location descriptions in your report if the report is for public distribution. If you have any questions regarding the results presented herein, please contact the office at the phone number listed above.
The provision of CHRIS Data via this records search response does not in any way constitute public disclosure of records otherwise exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act or any other law, including, but not limited to, records related to archeological site information maintained by or on behalf of , or i n the possession of, the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, S tate Historic Preservation Officer, Office of Historic Preservation, or the State Historical Resources Commission.
Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced o r paid for historical resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the CHRIS Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts.
Should you require any additional information for the above referenced project, reference the record search number listed above when making inquiries. Invoices for Information Center services will be sent under separ ate cover from the California State University, Bakersfield Accounting Office.
Thank you for using the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS).
Sincerely,
Celeste M. Thomson
Coordinator
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Riggin Avenue Widening (Kelsey to Shirk) Project 26 APPENDIX C
Native American Outreach
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION