Exhibit “D” - Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-18 — Visalia City Council, August 7, 2023 (part 2 of 2)

Barr-Wood Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name
Column Name
Default Value
New Value
tblFleetMix
HHD

0.02 0.02
tblFleetMix
LDA

0.55 0.51
tblFleetMix
LDT1

0.05 0.22
tblFleetMix
LDT2

0.17 0.17
tblFleetMix
LHD1

0.02 8.0000e-004
tblFleetMix
LHD2

6.6100e-003

1.0000e-003
tblFleetMix
MCY

0.02 2.5000e-003
tblFleetMix
MDV

0.14 0.06
tblFleetMix
MH

2.8150e-003

3.0000e-003
tblFleetMix
MHD

0.01 7.4000e-003
tblFleetMix
OBUS

6.1700e-004

0.00 tblFleetMix
SBUS

1.2780e-003

1.2000e-003
tblFleetMix
UBUS

4.6500e-004

4.4000e-003
tblLandUse
LotAcreage

44.16 69.35
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 9:41 AM

Page 2 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Year
tons/yr
MT/yr
2023

0.3378

3.2874

2.9256

6.1100e-
003

0.9379

0.1426

1.0805

0.4134

0.1320

0.5454

0.0000
536.9894
536.9894

0.1500

3.2600e-
003
541.7105
2024

0.2155

1.8635

2.3049

4.3500e-
003

0.0641

0.0812

0.1453

0.0174

0.0764

0.0937

0.0000
381.3573
381.3573

0.0732

6.8600e-
003
385.2317
2025

0.1995

1.7273

2.2724

4.3100e-
003

0.0639

0.0697

0.1335

0.0173

0.0655

0.0828

0.0000
378.3617
378.3617

0.0724

6.6300e-
003
382.1490
2026

0.1980

1.7254

2.2622

4.2900e-
003

0.0639

0.0696

0.1335

0.0173

0.0655

0.0828

0.0000
376.6949
376.6949

0.0723

6.4500e-
003
380.4235
2027

0.1843

1.6200

2.1993

4.0700e-
003

0.0556

0.0670

0.1226

0.0150

0.0629

0.0779

0.0000
357.4469
357.4469

0.0744

5.2400e-
003
360.8672
2028

2.3192

0.1725

0.2979

4.9000e-
004

4.7800e-
003

8.2300e-
003

0.0130

1.2700e-
003

7.7200e-
003

8.9900e-
003

0.0000

43.0118

0.0103

9.0000e-
005

43.2953
Maximum

2.3192

3.2874

2.9256

6.1100e-
003

0.9379

0.1426

1.0805

0.4134

0.1320

0.5454

0.0000
536.9894
536.9894

0.1500

6.8600e-
003
541.7105
Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 9:41 AM

Page 3 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Year
tons/yr
MT/yr
2023

0.3378

3.2874

2.9256

6.1100e-
003

0.9379

0.1426

1.0805

0.4134

0.1320

0.5454

0.0000
536.9888
536.9888

0.1500

3.2600e-
003
541.7099
2024

0.2155

1.8635

2.3049

4.3500e-
003

0.0641

0.0812

0.1453

0.0174

0.0764

0.0937

0.0000
381.3569
381.3569

0.0732

6.8600e-
003
385.2314
2025

0.1995

1.7273

2.2724

4.3100e-
003

0.0639

0.0697

0.1335

0.0173

0.0655

0.0828

0.0000
378.3614
378.3614

0.0724

6.6300e-
003
382.1486
2026

0.1980

1.7254

2.2622

4.2900e-
003

0.0639

0.0696

0.1335

0.0173

0.0655

0.0828

0.0000
376.6945
376.6945

0.0723

6.4500e-
003
380.4232
2027

0.1843

1.6200

2.1993

4.0700e-
003

0.0556

0.0670

0.1226

0.0150

0.0629

0.0779

0.0000
357.4465
357.4465

0.0744

5.2400e-
003
360.8668
2028

2.3192

0.1725

0.2979

4.9000e-
004

4.7800e-
003

8.2300e-
003

0.0130

1.2700e-
003

7.7200e-
003

8.9900e-
003

0.0000

43.0117

0.0103

9.0000e-
005

43.2952
Maximum

2.3192

3.2874

2.9256

6.1100e-
003

0.9379

0.1426

1.0805

0.4134

0.1320

0.5454

0.0000
536.9888
536.9888

0.1500

6.8600e-
003
541.7099
Mitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Quarter
Start Date
End Date
Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
1 1-1-2023
3-31-2023

1.0696

1.0696
2 4-1-2023
6-30-2023

1.2339

1.2339
3 7-1-2023
9-30-2023

0.7667

0.7667
4 10-1-2023
12-31-2023

0.5577

0.5577
5 1-1-2024
3-31-2024

0.5167

0.5167
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 9:41 AM

Page 4 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

6 4-1-2024
6-30-2024

0.5154

0.5154
7 7-1-2024
9-30-2024

0.5211

0.5211
8 10-1-2024
12-31-2024

0.5224

0.5224
9 1-1-2025
3-31-2025

0.4755

0.4755
10 4-1-2025
6-30-2025

0.4795

0.4795
11 7-1-2025
9-30-2025

0.4847

0.4847
12 10-1-2025
12-31-2025

0.4860

0.4860
13 1-1-2026
3-31-2026

0.4746

0.4746
14 4-1-2026
6-30-2026

0.4786

0.4786
15 7-1-2026
9-30-2026

0.4839

0.4839
16 10-1-2026
12-31-2026

0.4852

0.4852
17 1-1-2027
3-31-2027

0.4738

0.4738
18 4-1-2027
6-30-2027

0.4778

0.4778
19 7-1-2027
9-30-2027

0.4831

0.4831
20 10-1-2027
12-31-2027

0.3678

0.3678
21 1-1-2028
3-31-2028

1.2393

1.2393
22 4-1-2028
6-30-2028

1.2526

1.2526
Highest

1.2526

1.2526
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 9:41 AM

Page 5 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Area

9.6109

0.1577

10.2823

0.0150

1.2772

1.2772
112.9917

60.5657
173.5575

2.7000e-
003

0.0111
176.9179
Energy

0.0174

0.1489

0.0634

9.5000e-
004

0.0120

0.0000
363.9391
363.9391

0.0195

5.1200e-
003
365.9517
Mobile

0.2770

0.5508

3.4586

0.0105

1.3295

7.1700e-
003

1.3367

0.3549

6.6900e-
003

0.3616

0.0000
1,037.970
0 1,037.970
0 0.0520

0.0449
1,052.648
6 Waste

0.0000

28.4269

0.0000

28.4269

1.6800

0.0000

70.4263
Water

0.0000

2.8112

11.9706

14.7817

0.2897

6.9400e-
003

24.0935
Total

9.9053

0.8574

13.8043

0.0265

1.3295

1.2964

2.6259

0.3549

1.2959

1.6509
144.2298
1,474.445
3 1,618.675
1 2.0439

0.0680
1,690.038
0 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 9:41 AM

Page 6 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Area

9.6109

0.1577

10.2823

0.0150

1.2772

1.2772
112.9917

60.5657
173.5575

2.7000e-
003

0.0111
176.9179
Energy

0.0174

0.1489

0.0634

9.5000e-
004

0.0120

0.0000
363.9391
363.9391

0.0195

5.1200e-
003
365.9517
Mobile

0.2663

0.4632

2.9075

8.2300e-
003

1.0306

5.7200e-
003

1.0363

0.2751

5.3400e-
003

0.2805

0.0000
811.8840
811.8840

0.0442

0.0373
824.1087
Waste

0.0000

28.4269

0.0000

28.4269

1.6800

0.0000

70.4263
Water

0.0000

2.8112

11.9706

14.7817

0.2897

6.9400e-
003

24.0935
Total

9.8945

0.7699

13.2531

0.0242

1.0306

1.2950

2.3256

0.2751

1.2946

1.5697
144.2298
1,248.359
4 1,392.589
1 2.0360

0.0604
1,461.498
1 Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name
Phase Type
Start Date
End Date
Num Days
Week
Num Days
Phase Description
1 Site Preparation
Site Preparation
1/1/2023
2/24/2023
5 40
2 Grading
Grading
2/25/2023
7/28/2023
5 110
3 Building Construction
Building Construction
7/29/2023
10/29/2027
5 1110
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.11 10.21

3.99 8.64

22.48 0.11

11.44 22.49

0.10 4.92

0.00 15.33

13.97 0.38

11.15 13.52
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 9:41 AM

Page 7 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

4 Paving
Paving
10/30/2027
2/11/2028
5 75
5 Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating
2/12/2028
5/26/2028
5 75
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment Type
Amount
Usage Hours
Horse Power
Load Factor
Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers
3 8.00
247

0.40 Site Preparation
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
4 8.00
97 0.37
Grading
Excavators
2 8.00
158

0.38 Grading
Graders
1 8.00
187

0.41 Grading
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 8.00
247

0.40 Grading
Scrapers
2 8.00
367

0.48 Grading
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
2 8.00
97 0.37
Building Construction
Cranes
1 7.00
231

0.29 Building Construction
Forklifts
3 8.00
89 0.20
Building Construction
Generator Sets
1 8.00
84 0.74
Building Construction
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
3 7.00
97 0.37
Building Construction
Welders
1 8.00
46 0.45
Paving
Pavers
2 8.00
130

0.42 Paving
Paving Equipment
2 8.00
132

0.36 Paving
Rollers
2 8.00
80 0.38
Architectural Coating
Air Compressors
1 6.00
78 0.48
Trips and VMT
Residential Indoor: 495,720; Residential Outdoor: 165,240; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating
–
sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 60
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 330
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 9:41 AM

Page 8 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

0.3931

0.0000

0.3931

0.2021

0.0000

0.2021

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0532

0.5505

0.3649

7.6000e-
004

0.0253

0.0233

0.0000

66.9014

0.0216

0.0000

67.4423
Total

0.0532

0.5505

0.3649

7.6000e-
004

0.3931

0.0253

0.4185

0.2021

0.0233

0.2253

0.0000

66.9014

0.0216

0.0000

67.4423
Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation
7 18.00

0.00 0.00

10.80 7.30

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Grading
8 20.00

0.00 0.00

10.80 7.30

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Building Construction
9 49.00

15.00 0.00

10.80 7.30

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Paving
6 15.00

0.00 0.00

10.80 7.30

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Architectural Coating
1 10.00

0.00 0.00

10.80 7.30

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 9:41 AM

Page 9 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

1.2600e-
003

8.8000e-
004

9.8200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.8700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

2.8800e-
003

7.6000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.8000e-
004

0.0000

2.3060

8.0000e-
005

7.0000e-
005

2.3299
Total

1.2600e-
003

8.8000e-
004

9.8200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.8700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

2.8800e-
003

7.6000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.8000e-
004

0.0000

2.3060

8.0000e-
005

7.0000e-
005

2.3299
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

0.3931

0.0000

0.3931

0.2021

0.0000

0.2021

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0532

0.5505

0.3649

7.6000e-
004

0.0253

0.0233

0.0000

66.9013

0.0216

0.0000

67.4422
Total

0.0532

0.5505

0.3649

7.6000e-
004

0.3931

0.0253

0.4185

0.2021

0.0233

0.2253

0.0000

66.9013

0.0216

0.0000

67.4422
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 9:41 AM

Page 10 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

1.2600e-
003

8.8000e-
004

9.8200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.8700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

2.8800e-
003

7.6000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.8000e-
004

0.0000

2.3060

8.0000e-
005

7.0000e-
005

2.3299
Total

1.2600e-
003

8.8000e-
004

9.8200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.8700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

2.8800e-
003

7.6000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.8000e-
004

0.0000

2.3060

8.0000e-
005

7.0000e-
005

2.3299
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Grading - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

0.5062

0.0000

0.5062

0.2010

0.0000

0.2010

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.1827

1.8984

1.5428

3.4100e-
003

0.0784

0.0721

0.0000
299.9437
299.9437

0.0970

0.0000
302.3688
Total

0.1827

1.8984

1.5428

3.4100e-
003

0.5062

0.0784

0.5846

0.2010

0.0721

0.2730

0.0000
299.9437
299.9437

0.0970

0.0000
302.3688
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 9:41 AM

Page 11 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Grading - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

3.8400e-
003

2.7000e-
003

0.0300

8.0000e-
005

8.7600e-
003

5.0000e-
005

8.8100e-
003

2.3300e-
003

4.0000e-
005

2.3700e-
003

0.0000

7.0461

2.4000e-
004

2.3000e-
004

7.1192
Total

3.8400e-
003

2.7000e-
003

0.0300

8.0000e-
005

8.7600e-
003

5.0000e-
005

8.8100e-
003

2.3300e-
003

4.0000e-
005

2.3700e-
003

0.0000

7.0461

2.4000e-
004

2.3000e-
004

7.1192
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

0.5062

0.0000

0.5062

0.2010

0.0000

0.2010

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.1827

1.8984

1.5428

3.4100e-
003

0.0784

0.0721

0.0000
299.9433
299.9433

0.0970

0.0000
302.3685
Total

0.1827

1.8984

1.5428

3.4100e-
003

0.5062

0.0784

0.5846

0.2010

0.0721

0.2730

0.0000
299.9433
299.9433

0.0970

0.0000
302.3685
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 9:41 AM

Page 12 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Grading - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

3.8400e-
003

2.7000e-
003

0.0300

8.0000e-
005

8.7600e-
003

5.0000e-
005

8.8100e-
003

2.3300e-
003

4.0000e-
005

2.3700e-
003

0.0000

7.0461

2.4000e-
004

2.3000e-
004

7.1192
Total

3.8400e-
003

2.7000e-
003

0.0300

8.0000e-
005

8.7600e-
003

5.0000e-
005

8.8100e-
003

2.3300e-
003

4.0000e-
005

2.3700e-
003

0.0000

7.0461

2.4000e-
004

2.3000e-
004

7.1192
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Building Construction - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.0865

0.7912

0.8934

1.4800e-
003

0.0385

0.0362

0.0000
127.4926
127.4926

0.0303

0.0000
128.2508
Total

0.0865

0.7912

0.8934

1.4800e-
003

0.0385

0.0362

0.0000
127.4926
127.4926

0.0303

0.0000
128.2508
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 9:41 AM

Page 13 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

9.3000e-
004

0.0372

0.0112

1.7000e-
004

5.4500e-
003

2.4000e-
004

5.6900e-
003

1.5800e-
003

2.3000e-
004

1.8000e-
003

0.0000

16.0366

7.0000e-
005

2.4100e-
003

16.7572
Worker

9.4200e-
003

6.6100e-
003

0.0735

1.9000e-
004

0.0215

1.1000e-
004

0.0216

5.7100e-
003

1.0000e-
004

5.8100e-
003

0.0000

17.2630

5.9000e-
004

5.5000e-
004

17.4421
Total

0.0104

0.0438

0.0847

3.6000e-
004

0.0269

3.5000e-
004

0.0273

7.2900e-
003

3.3000e-
004

7.6100e-
003

0.0000

33.2996

6.6000e-
004

2.9600e-
003

34.1993
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.0865

0.7912

0.8934

1.4800e-
003

0.0385

0.0362

0.0000
127.4925
127.4925

0.0303

0.0000
128.2507
Total

0.0865

0.7912

0.8934

1.4800e-
003

0.0385

0.0362

0.0000
127.4925
127.4925

0.0303

0.0000
128.2507
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 9:41 AM

Page 14 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

9.3000e-
004

0.0372

0.0112

1.7000e-
004

5.4500e-
003

2.4000e-
004

5.6900e-
003

1.5800e-
003

2.3000e-
004

1.8000e-
003

0.0000

16.0366

7.0000e-
005

2.4100e-
003

16.7572
Worker

9.4200e-
003

6.6100e-
003

0.0735

1.9000e-
004

0.0215

1.1000e-
004

0.0216

5.7100e-
003

1.0000e-
004

5.8100e-
003

0.0000

17.2630

5.9000e-
004

5.5000e-
004

17.4421
Total

0.0104

0.0438

0.0847

3.6000e-
004

0.0269

3.5000e-
004

0.0273

7.2900e-
003

3.3000e-
004

7.6100e-
003

0.0000

33.2996

6.6000e-
004

2.9600e-
003

34.1993
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Building Construction - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.1928

1.7611

2.1179

3.5300e-
003

0.0803

0.0756

0.0000
303.7223
303.7223

0.0718

0.0000
305.5179
Total

0.1928

1.7611

2.1179

3.5300e-
003

0.0803

0.0756

0.0000
303.7223
303.7223

0.0718

0.0000
305.5179
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 9:41 AM

Page 15 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

2.1500e-
003

0.0885

0.0261

3.9000e-
004

0.0130

5.7000e-
004

0.0136

3.7600e-
003

5.4000e-
004

4.3000e-
003

0.0000

37.6071

1.7000e-
004

5.6500e-
003

39.2950
Worker

0.0206

0.0138

0.1609

4.3000e-
004

0.0511

2.5000e-
004

0.0514

0.0136

2.3000e-
004

0.0138

0.0000

40.0278

1.2500e-
003

1.2100e-
003

40.4189
Total

0.0227

0.1023

0.1870

8.2000e-
004

0.0641

8.2000e-
004

0.0649

0.0174

7.7000e-
004

0.0181

0.0000

77.6350

1.4200e-
003

6.8600e-
003

79.7139
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.1928

1.7611

2.1179

3.5300e-
003

0.0803

0.0756

0.0000
303.7220
303.7220

0.0718

0.0000
305.5175
Total

0.1928

1.7611

2.1179

3.5300e-
003

0.0803

0.0756

0.0000
303.7220
303.7220

0.0718

0.0000
305.5175
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 9:41 AM

Page 16 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

2.1500e-
003

0.0885

0.0261

3.9000e-
004

0.0130

5.7000e-
004

0.0136

3.7600e-
003

5.4000e-
004

4.3000e-
003

0.0000

37.6071

1.7000e-
004

5.6500e-
003

39.2950
Worker

0.0206

0.0138

0.1609

4.3000e-
004

0.0511

2.5000e-
004

0.0514

0.0136

2.3000e-
004

0.0138

0.0000

40.0278

1.2500e-
003

1.2100e-
003

40.4189
Total

0.0227

0.1023

0.1870

8.2000e-
004

0.0641

8.2000e-
004

0.0649

0.0174

7.7000e-
004

0.0181

0.0000

77.6350

1.4200e-
003

6.8600e-
003

79.7139
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Building Construction - 2025
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.1785

1.6273

2.0991

3.5200e-
003

0.0689

0.0648

0.0000
302.6549
302.6549

0.0711

0.0000
304.4335
Total

0.1785

1.6273

2.0991

3.5200e-
003

0.0689

0.0648

0.0000
302.6549
302.6549

0.0711

0.0000
304.4335
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 9:41 AM

Page 17 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2025
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

2.1000e-
003

0.0878

0.0255

3.8000e-
004

0.0129

5.7000e-
004

0.0135

3.7400e-
003

5.4000e-
004

4.2800e-
003

0.0000

36.8016

1.6000e-
004

5.5200e-
003

38.4509
Worker

0.0189

0.0122

0.1479

4.1000e-
004

0.0509

2.4000e-
004

0.0512

0.0135

2.2000e-
004

0.0138

0.0000

38.9052

1.1200e-
003

1.1100e-
003

39.2646
Total

0.0210

0.1000

0.1734

7.9000e-
004

0.0639

8.1000e-
004

0.0647

0.0173

7.6000e-
004

0.0180

0.0000

75.7068

1.2800e-
003

6.6300e-
003

77.7155
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.1784

1.6273

2.0991

3.5200e-
003

0.0689

0.0648

0.0000
302.6545
302.6545

0.0711

0.0000
304.4331
Total

0.1784

1.6273

2.0991

3.5200e-
003

0.0689

0.0648

0.0000
302.6545
302.6545

0.0711

0.0000
304.4331
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 9:41 AM

Page 18 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2025
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

2.1000e-
003

0.0878

0.0255

3.8000e-
004

0.0129

5.7000e-
004

0.0135

3.7400e-
003

5.4000e-
004

4.2800e-
003

0.0000

36.8016

1.6000e-
004

5.5200e-
003

38.4509
Worker

0.0189

0.0122

0.1479

4.1000e-
004

0.0509

2.4000e-
004

0.0512

0.0135

2.2000e-
004

0.0138

0.0000

38.9052

1.1200e-
003

1.1100e-
003

39.2646
Total

0.0210

0.1000

0.1734

7.9000e-
004

0.0639

8.1000e-
004

0.0647

0.0173

7.6000e-
004

0.0180

0.0000

75.7068

1.2800e-
003

6.6300e-
003

77.7155
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Building Construction - 2026
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.1785

1.6273

2.0991

3.5200e-
003

0.0689

0.0648

0.0000
302.6549
302.6549

0.0711

0.0000
304.4335
Total

0.1785

1.6273

2.0991

3.5200e-
003

0.0689

0.0648

0.0000
302.6549
302.6549

0.0711

0.0000
304.4335
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 9:41 AM

Page 19 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2026
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

2.0500e-
003

0.0872

0.0251

3.8000e-
004

0.0129

5.6000e-
004

0.0135

3.7400e-
003

5.4000e-
004

4.2800e-
003

0.0000

36.1232

1.6000e-
004

5.4100e-
003

37.7395
Worker

0.0175

0.0109

0.1380

4.0000e-
004

0.0509

2.2000e-
004

0.0512

0.0135

2.1000e-
004

0.0138

0.0000

37.9168

1.0100e-
003

1.0400e-
003

38.2505
Total

0.0196

0.0981

0.1631

7.8000e-
004

0.0639

7.8000e-
004

0.0647

0.0173

7.5000e-
004

0.0180

0.0000

74.0400

1.1700e-
003

6.4500e-
003

75.9900
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.1784

1.6273

2.0991

3.5200e-
003

0.0689

0.0648

0.0000
302.6545
302.6545

0.0711

0.0000
304.4331
Total

0.1784

1.6273

2.0991

3.5200e-
003

0.0689

0.0648

0.0000
302.6545
302.6545

0.0711

0.0000
304.4331
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 9:41 AM

Page 20 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2026
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

2.0500e-
003

0.0872

0.0251

3.8000e-
004

0.0129

5.6000e-
004

0.0135

3.7400e-
003

5.4000e-
004

4.2800e-
003

0.0000

36.1232

1.6000e-
004

5.4100e-
003

37.7395
Worker

0.0175

0.0109

0.1380

4.0000e-
004

0.0509

2.2000e-
004

0.0512

0.0135

2.1000e-
004

0.0138

0.0000

37.9168

1.0100e-
003

1.0400e-
003

38.2505
Total

0.0196

0.0981

0.1631

7.8000e-
004

0.0639

7.8000e-
004

0.0647

0.0173

7.5000e-
004

0.0180

0.0000

74.0400

1.1700e-
003

6.4500e-
003

75.9900
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Building Construction - 2027
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.1477

1.3467

1.7371

2.9100e-
003

0.0570

0.0536

0.0000
250.4730
250.4730

0.0589

0.0000
251.9450
Total

0.1477

1.3467

1.7371

2.9100e-
003

0.0570

0.0536

0.0000
250.4730
250.4730

0.0589

0.0000
251.9450
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 9:41 AM

Page 21 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2027
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

1.6700e-
003

0.0716

0.0205

3.1000e-
004

0.0107

4.6000e-
004

0.0112

3.1000e-
003

4.4000e-
004

3.5400e-
003

0.0000

29.2923

1.3000e-
004

4.3800e-
003

30.6012
Worker

0.0135

8.0800e-
003

0.1069

3.2000e-
004

0.0422

1.7000e-
004

0.0423

0.0112

1.6000e-
004

0.0114

0.0000

30.6816

7.6000e-
004

8.0000e-
004

30.9403
Total

0.0152

0.0797

0.1273

6.3000e-
004

0.0529

6.3000e-
004

0.0535

0.0143

6.0000e-
004

0.0149

0.0000

59.9738

8.9000e-
004

5.1800e-
003

61.5414
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.1477

1.3467

1.7371

2.9100e-
003

0.0570

0.0536

0.0000
250.4727
250.4727

0.0589

0.0000
251.9447
Total

0.1477

1.3467

1.7371

2.9100e-
003

0.0570

0.0536

0.0000
250.4727
250.4727

0.0589

0.0000
251.9447
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 9:41 AM

Page 22 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2027
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

1.6700e-
003

0.0716

0.0205

3.1000e-
004

0.0107

4.6000e-
004

0.0112

3.1000e-
003

4.4000e-
004

3.5400e-
003

0.0000

29.2923

1.3000e-
004

4.3800e-
003

30.6012
Worker

0.0135

8.0800e-
003

0.1069

3.2000e-
004

0.0422

1.7000e-
004

0.0423

0.0112

1.6000e-
004

0.0114

0.0000

30.6816

7.6000e-
004

8.0000e-
004

30.9403
Total

0.0152

0.0797

0.1273

6.3000e-
004

0.0529

6.3000e-
004

0.0535

0.0143

6.0000e-
004

0.0149

0.0000

59.9738

8.9000e-
004

5.1800e-
003

61.5414
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Paving - 2027
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.0206

0.1931

0.3280

5.1000e-
004

9.4200e-
003

8.6600e-
003

0.0000

45.0433

0.0146

0.0000

45.4075
Paving

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0206

0.1931

0.3280

5.1000e-
004

9.4200e-
003

8.6600e-
003

0.0000

45.0433

0.0146

0.0000

45.4075
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 9:41 AM

Page 23 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Paving - 2027
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

8.6000e-
004

5.2000e-
004

6.8100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.6900e-
003

1.0000e-
005

2.7000e-
003

7.1000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.2000e-
004

0.0000

1.9567

5.0000e-
005

1.9732
Total

8.6000e-
004

5.2000e-
004

6.8100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.6900e-
003

1.0000e-
005

2.7000e-
003

7.1000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.2000e-
004

0.0000

1.9567

5.0000e-
005

1.9732
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.0206

0.1931

0.3280

5.1000e-
004

9.4200e-
003

8.6600e-
003

0.0000

45.0433

0.0146

0.0000

45.4075
Paving

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0206

0.1931

0.3280

5.1000e-
004

9.4200e-
003

8.6600e-
003

0.0000

45.0433

0.0146

0.0000

45.4075
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 9:41 AM

Page 24 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Paving - 2027
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

8.6000e-
004

5.2000e-
004

6.8100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.6900e-
003

1.0000e-
005

2.7000e-
003

7.1000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.2000e-
004

0.0000

1.9567

5.0000e-
005

1.9732
Total

8.6000e-
004

5.2000e-
004

6.8100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.6900e-
003

1.0000e-
005

2.7000e-
003

7.1000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.2000e-
004

0.0000

1.9567

5.0000e-
005

1.9732
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Paving - 2028
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.0137

0.1287

0.2187

3.4000e-
004

6.2800e-
003

5.7800e-
003

0.0000

30.0289

9.7100e-
003

0.0000

30.2717
Paving

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0137

0.1287

0.2187

3.4000e-
004

6.2800e-
003

5.7800e-
003

0.0000

30.0289

9.7100e-
003

0.0000

30.2717
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 9:41 AM

Page 25 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Paving - 2028
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

5.3000e-
004

3.1000e-
004

4.2800e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.7900e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8000e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.8000e-
004

0.0000

1.2781

3.0000e-
005

1.2884
Total

5.3000e-
004

3.1000e-
004

4.2800e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.7900e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8000e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.8000e-
004

0.0000

1.2781

3.0000e-
005

1.2884
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.0137

0.1287

0.2187

3.4000e-
004

6.2800e-
003

5.7800e-
003

0.0000

30.0289

9.7100e-
003

0.0000

30.2717
Paving

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0137

0.1287

0.2187

3.4000e-
004

6.2800e-
003

5.7800e-
003

0.0000

30.0289

9.7100e-
003

0.0000

30.2717
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 9:41 AM

Page 26 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Paving - 2028
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

5.3000e-
004

3.1000e-
004

4.2800e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.7900e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8000e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.8000e-
004

0.0000

1.2781

3.0000e-
005

1.2884
Total

5.3000e-
004

3.1000e-
004

4.2800e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.7900e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8000e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.8000e-
004

0.0000

1.2781

3.0000e-
005

1.2884
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2028
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Archit. Coating

2.2977

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

6.4100e-
003

0.0430

0.0678

1.1000e-
004

1.9300e-
003

0.0000

9.5747

5.2000e-
004

0.0000

9.5878
Total

2.3041

0.0430

0.0678

1.1000e-
004

1.9300e-
003

0.0000

9.5747

5.2000e-
004

0.0000

9.5878
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 9:41 AM

Page 27 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2028
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

8.9000e-
004

5.2000e-
004

7.1400e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.9900e-
003

1.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
003

7.9000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

8.0000e-
004

0.0000

2.1301

5.0000e-
005

2.1474
Total

8.9000e-
004

5.2000e-
004

7.1400e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.9900e-
003

1.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
003

7.9000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

8.0000e-
004

0.0000

2.1301

5.0000e-
005

2.1474
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Archit. Coating

2.2977

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

6.4100e-
003

0.0430

0.0678

1.1000e-
004

1.9300e-
003

0.0000

9.5747

5.2000e-
004

0.0000

9.5878
Total

2.3041

0.0430

0.0678

1.1000e-
004

1.9300e-
003

0.0000

9.5747

5.2000e-
004

0.0000

9.5878
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 9:41 AM

Page 28 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2028
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

8.9000e-
004

5.2000e-
004

7.1400e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.9900e-
003

1.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
003

7.9000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

8.0000e-
004

0.0000

2.1301

5.0000e-
005

2.1474
Total

8.9000e-
004

5.2000e-
004

7.1400e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.9900e-
003

1.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
003

7.9000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

8.0000e-
004

0.0000

2.1301

5.0000e-
005

2.1474
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
Increase Density
Increase Diversity
Improve Walkability Design
Improve Destination Accessibility
Increase Transit Accessibility
Improve Pedestrian Network
Provide Traffic Calming Measures
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 9:41 AM

Page 29 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Mitigated

0.2663

0.4632

2.9075

8.2300e-
003

1.0306

5.7200e-
003

1.0363

0.2751

5.3400e-
003

0.2805

0.0000
811.8840
811.8840

0.0442

0.0373
824.1087
Unmitigated

0.2770

0.5508

3.4586

0.0105

1.3295

7.1700e-
003

1.3367

0.3549

6.6900e-
003

0.3616

0.0000
1,037.970
0 1,037.970
0 0.0520

0.0449
1,052.648
6 4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate
Unmitigated
Mitigated
Land Use
Weekday
Saturday
Sunday
Annual VMT
Annual VMT
Single Family Housing
1,283.84
1,297.44
1162.80
3,575,540
2,771,614
Total
1,283.84
1,297.44
1,162.80
3,575,540
2,771,614
Miles
Trip %
Trip Purpose %
Land Use
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW
Primary
Diverted
Pass-by
Single Family Housing

10.80 7.30

7.50 38.40

22.60 39.00
86 11
3 4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use
LDA
LDT1
LDT2
MDV
LHD1
LHD2
MHD
HHD
OBUS
UBUS
MCY
SBUS
MH
Single Family Housing

0.511000

0.223100

0.169000

0.059300

0.000800

0.001000

0.007400

0.017300

0.000000

0.004400

0.002500

0.001200

0.003000

5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 9:41 AM

Page 30 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000

0.0000
191.4795
191.4795

0.0162

1.9600e-
003
192.4673
Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000

0.0000
191.4795
191.4795

0.0162

1.9600e-
003
192.4673
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0174

0.1489

0.0634

9.5000e-
004

0.0120

0.0000
172.4596
172.4596

3.3100e-
003

3.1600e-
003
173.4844
NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0174

0.1489

0.0634

9.5000e-
004

0.0120

0.0000
172.4596
172.4596

3.3100e-
003

3.1600e-
003
173.4844

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kBTU/yr
tons/yr
MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

3.23177e
+006

0.0174

0.1489

0.0634

9.5000e-
004

0.0120

0.0000
172.4596
172.4596

3.3100e-
003

3.1600e-
003
173.4844
Total

0.0174

0.1489

0.0634

9.5000e-
004

0.0120

0.0000
172.4596
172.4596

3.3100e-
003

3.1600e-
003
173.4844
Unmitigated

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 9:41 AM

Page 31 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.23177e
+006

0.0174

0.1489

0.0634

9.5000e-
004

0.0120

0.0000
172.4596
172.4596

3.3100e-
003

3.1600e-
003
173.4844
Total

0.0174

0.1489

0.0634

9.5000e-
004

0.0120

0.0000
172.4596
172.4596

3.3100e-
003

3.1600e-
003
173.4844
Mitigated

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kWh/yr
MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

1.0797e
+006
191.4795

0.0162

1.9600e-
003
192.4673
Total
191.4795

0.0162

1.9600e-
003
192.4673
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 9:41 AM

Page 32 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Mitigated

9.6109

0.1577

10.2823

0.0150

1.2772

1.2772
112.9917

60.5657
173.5575

2.7000e-
003

0.0111
176.9179
Unmitigated

9.6109

0.1577

10.2823

0.0150

1.2772

1.2772
112.9917

60.5657
173.5575

2.7000e-
003

0.0111
176.9179

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kWh/yr
MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

1.0797e
+006
191.4795

0.0162

1.9600e-
003
192.4673
Total
191.4795

0.0162

1.9600e-
003
192.4673
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 9:41 AM

Page 33 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
SubCategory
tons/yr
MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.2298

0.0000

0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.9561

0.0000

0.0000
Hearth

8.3949

0.1461

9.2751

0.0150

1.2716

1.2716
112.9917

58.9162
171.9079

1.1300e-
003

0.0111
175.2291
Landscaping

0.0301

0.0116

1.0072

5.0000e-
005

5.6000e-
003

0.0000

1.6495

1.5700e-
003

0.0000

1.6888
Total

9.6109

0.1577

10.2823

0.0150

1.2772

1.2772
112.9917

60.5657
173.5575

2.7000e-
003

0.0111
176.9179
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 9:41 AM

Page 34 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.2298

0.0000

0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.9561

0.0000

0.0000
Hearth

8.3949

0.1461

9.2751

0.0150

1.2716

1.2716
112.9917

58.9162
171.9079

1.1300e-
003

0.0111
175.2291
Landscaping

0.0301

0.0116

1.0072

5.0000e-
005

5.6000e-
003

0.0000

1.6495

1.5700e-
003

0.0000

1.6888
Total

9.6109

0.1577

10.2823

0.0150

1.2772

1.2772
112.9917

60.5657
173.5575

2.7000e-
003

0.0111
176.9179
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 9:41 AM

Page 35 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
MT/yr
Mitigated

14.7817

0.2897

6.9400e-
003

24.0935
Unmitigated

14.7817

0.2897

6.9400e-
003

24.0935

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
Mgal
MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

8.86095 /

5.58625

14.7817

0.2897

6.9400e-
003

24.0935
Total

14.7817

0.2897

6.9400e-
003

24.0935
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 9:41 AM

Page 36 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
Mgal
MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

8.86095 /

5.58625

14.7817

0.2897

6.9400e-
003

24.0935
Total

14.7817

0.2897

6.9400e-
003

24.0935
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated

28.4269

1.6800

0.0000

70.4263
Unmitigated

28.4269

1.6800

0.0000

70.4263
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 9:41 AM

Page 37 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
tons
MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
140.04

28.4269

1.6800

0.0000

70.4263
Total

28.4269

1.6800

0.0000

70.4263
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
tons
MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
140.04

28.4269

1.6800

0.0000

70.4263
Total

28.4269

1.6800

0.0000

70.4263
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type
Number
Hours/Day
Days/Year
Horse Power
Load Factor
Fuel Type
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 9:41 AM

Page 38 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

11.0 Vegetation

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type
Number
Hours/Day
Hours/Year
Horse Power
Load Factor
Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type
Number
Heat Input/Day
Heat Input/Year
Boiler Rating
Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type
Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 9:41 AM

Page 39 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

Part 2
2005 BAU from CalEEMod
Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU
Tulare County, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Lot Acerage Established
Construction Phase -
Off-road Equipment -
Trips and VMT -
Grading -
Fleet Mix -
Woodstoves -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation -
Mobile Land Use Mitigation -
Vehicle Trips -
Vehicle Emission Factors -

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses
Size
Metric
Lot Acreage
Floor Surface Area
Population
Single Family Housing
136.00
Dwelling Unit

69.35 244,800.00
389

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
7 Wind Speed (m/s)
Precipitation Freq (Days)

2.2 51

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company
Southern California Edison
2012
Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
390.98

0.033
CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.004
N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM

Page 1 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU - Tulare County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Vehicle Emission Factors -
Vehicle Emission Factors -
Energy Use -
Water And Wastewater -
Solid Waste -

2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name
Column Name
Default Value
New Value
tblArchitecturalCoating
EF_Nonresidential_Exterior
250.00
150.00
tblArchitecturalCoating
EF_Nonresidential_Interior
250.00
150.00
tblArchitecturalCoating
EF_Residential_Exterior
250.00
150.00
tblArchitecturalCoating
EF_Residential_Interior
250.00
150.00
tblLandUse
LotAcreage

44.16 69.35
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM

Page 2 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU - Tulare County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Year
tons/yr
MT/yr
2005

1.3594

9.6618

5.0153

0.0656

0.9379

0.5754

1.5133

0.4134

0.5749

0.9883

0.0000
641.5487
641.5487

0.1099

7.6600e-
003
646.5791
2006

1.1453

6.0687

4.0026

0.0444

0.0636

0.4748

0.5385

0.0172

0.4738

0.4910

0.0000
445.9211
445.9211

0.0913

0.0143
452.4573
2007

1.1497

6.0920

4.0180

0.0446

0.0639

0.4766

0.5405

0.0173

0.4756

0.4929

0.0000
447.6361
447.6361

0.0917

0.0143
454.1975
2008

1.1541

6.1154

4.0334

0.0448

0.0641

0.4785

0.5426

0.0174

0.4775

0.4948

0.0000
449.3512
449.3512

0.0920

0.0144
455.9377
2009

1.0890

5.9890

3.7955

0.0431

0.0557

0.4544

0.5101

0.0151

0.4536

0.4686

0.0000
428.1256
428.1256

0.0871

0.0123
433.9616
2010

2.3717

0.6243

0.3891

5.2000e-
004

4.8400e-
003

0.0392

0.0441

1.2900e-
003

0.0371

0.0384

0.0000

49.3211

0.0125

4.7000e-
004

49.7720
Maximum

2.3717

9.6618

5.0153

0.0656

0.9379

0.5754

1.5133

0.4134

0.5749

0.9883

0.0000
641.5487
641.5487

0.1099

0.0144
646.5791
Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM

Page 3 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU - Tulare County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Year
tons/yr
MT/yr
2005

1.3594

9.6618

5.0153

0.0656

0.9379

0.5754

1.5133

0.4134

0.5749

0.9883

0.0000
641.5480
641.5480

0.1099

7.6600e-
003
646.5784
2006

1.1453

6.0687

4.0026

0.0444

0.0636

0.4748

0.5384

0.0172

0.4738

0.4910

0.0000
445.9207
445.9207

0.0913

0.0143
452.4569
2007

1.1497

6.0920

4.0180

0.0446

0.0639

0.4766

0.5405

0.0173

0.4756

0.4929

0.0000
447.6357
447.6357

0.0917

0.0143
454.1971
2008

1.1541

6.1153

4.0334

0.0448

0.0641

0.4785

0.5426

0.0174

0.4775

0.4948

0.0000
449.3508
449.3508

0.0920

0.0144
455.9373
2009

1.0890

5.9890

3.7955

0.0431

0.0557

0.4544

0.5101

0.0151

0.4536

0.4686

0.0000
428.1252
428.1252

0.0871

0.0123
433.9612
2010

2.3717

0.6243

0.3891

5.2000e-
004

4.8400e-
003

0.0392

0.0441

1.2900e-
003

0.0371

0.0384

0.0000

49.3211

0.0125

4.7000e-
004

49.7720
Maximum

2.3717

9.6618

5.0153

0.0656

0.9379

0.5754

1.5133

0.4134

0.5749

0.9883

0.0000
641.5480
641.5480

0.1099

0.0144
646.5784
Mitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Quarter
Start Date
End Date
Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
1 1-1-2005
3-31-2005

3.0074

3.0074
2 4-1-2005
6-30-2005

3.7643

3.7643
3 7-1-2005
9-30-2005

2.4449

2.4449
4 10-1-2005
12-31-2005

1.8300

1.8300
5 1-1-2006
3-31-2006

1.7902

1.7902
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM

Page 4 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU - Tulare County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

6 4-1-2006
6-30-2006

1.7988

1.7988
7 7-1-2006
9-30-2006

1.8185

1.8185
8 10-1-2006
12-31-2006

1.8300

1.8300
9 1-1-2007
3-31-2007

1.7902

1.7902
10 4-1-2007
6-30-2007

1.7988

1.7988
11 7-1-2007
9-30-2007

1.8185

1.8185
12 10-1-2007
12-31-2007

1.8300

1.8300
13 1-1-2008
3-31-2008

1.8101

1.8101
14 4-1-2008
6-30-2008

1.7988

1.7988
15 7-1-2008
9-30-2008

1.8185

1.8185
16 10-1-2008
12-31-2008

1.8300

1.8300
17 1-1-2009
3-31-2009

1.7902

1.7902
18 4-1-2009
6-30-2009

1.7988

1.7988
19 7-1-2009
9-30-2009

1.8185

1.8185
20 10-1-2009
12-31-2009

1.6617

1.6617
21 1-1-2010
3-31-2010

1.6308

1.6308
22 4-1-2010
6-30-2010

1.3611

1.3611
Highest

3.7643

3.7643
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM

Page 5 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU - Tulare County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Area

9.6165

0.1587

10.3244

0.0150

1.2771

1.2771
112.9917

60.5657
173.5575

2.9900e-
003

0.0111
176.9252
Energy

0.0174

0.1489

0.0634

9.5000e-
004

0.0120

0.0000
363.9391
363.9391

0.0195

5.1200e-
003
365.9517
Mobile

1.6791

3.7858

17.4555

0.0183

1.3399

0.0717

1.4116

0.3594

0.0682

0.4276

0.0000
1,694.587
1 1,694.587
1 0.1784

0.1397
1,740.676
7 Waste

0.0000

28.4269

0.0000

28.4269

1.6800

0.0000

70.4263
Water

0.0000

2.8112

11.9706

14.7817

0.2897

6.9400e-
003

24.0935
Total

11.3130

4.0934

27.8434

0.0343

1.3399

1.3608

2.7007

0.3594

1.3573

1.7167
144.2298
2,131.062
4 2,275.292
2 2.1706

0.1628
2,378.073
4 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM

Page 6 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU - Tulare County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Area

9.6165

0.1587

10.3244

0.0150

1.2771

1.2771
112.9917

60.5657
173.5575

2.9900e-
003

0.0111
176.9252
Energy

0.0174

0.1489

0.0634

9.5000e-
004

0.0120

0.0000
363.9391
363.9391

0.0195

5.1200e-
003
365.9517
Mobile

1.6791

3.7858

17.4555

0.0183

1.3399

0.0717

1.4116

0.3594

0.0682

0.4276

0.0000
1,694.587
1 1,694.587
1 0.1784

0.1397
1,740.676
7 Waste

0.0000

28.4269

0.0000

28.4269

1.6800

0.0000

70.4263
Water

0.0000

2.8112

11.9706

14.7817

0.2897

6.9400e-
003

24.0935
Total

11.3130

4.0934

27.8434

0.0343

1.3399

1.3608

2.7007

0.3594

1.3573

1.7167
144.2298
2,131.062
4 2,275.292
2 2.1706

0.1628
2,378.073
4 Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name
Phase Type
Start Date
End Date
Num Days
Week
Num Days
Phase Description
1 Site Preparation
Site Preparation
1/1/2005
2/25/2005
5 40
2 Grading
Grading
2/26/2005
7/29/2005
5 110
3 Building Construction
Building Construction
7/30/2005
10/30/2009
5 1110
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM

Page 7 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU - Tulare County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

4 Paving
Paving
10/31/2009
2/12/2010
5 75
5 Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating
2/13/2010
5/28/2010
5 75
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment Type
Amount
Usage Hours
Horse Power
Load Factor
Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers
3 8.00
247

0.40 Site Preparation
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
4 8.00
97 0.37
Grading
Excavators
2 8.00
158

0.38 Grading
Graders
1 8.00
187

0.41 Grading
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 8.00
247

0.40 Grading
Scrapers
2 8.00
367

0.48 Grading
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
2 8.00
97 0.37
Building Construction
Cranes
1 7.00
231

0.42 Paving
Paving Equipment
2 8.00
132

Page 8 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU - Tulare County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Site Preparation - 2005
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

0.3931

0.0000

0.3931

0.2021

0.0000

0.2021

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.1866

1.3985

0.5263

9.0000e-
003

0.0863

0.0000

80.0092

0.0152

0.0000

80.3895
Total

0.1866

1.3985

0.5263

9.0000e-
003

0.3931

0.0863

0.4794

0.2021

0.0863

0.2884

0.0000

80.0092

0.0152

0.0000

80.3895
Unmitigated Construction On-Site

0.00 0.00

10.80 7.30

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Grading
8 20.00

0.00 0.00

10.80 7.30

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Building Construction
9 49.00

15.00 0.00

10.80 7.30

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Paving
6 15.00

0.00 0.00

10.80 7.30

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Architectural Coating
1 10.00

0.00 0.00

10.80 7.30

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM

Page 9 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU - Tulare County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Site Preparation - 2005
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

6.3200e-
003

8.0700e-
003

0.0643

3.0000e-
005

2.8700e-
003

8.0000e-
005

2.9400e-
003

7.6000e-
004

7.0000e-
005

8.3000e-
004

0.0000

3.2008

5.1000e-
004

4.0000e-
004

3.3329
Total

6.3200e-
003

8.0700e-
003

0.0643

3.0000e-
005

2.8700e-
003

8.0000e-
005

2.9400e-
003

7.6000e-
004

7.0000e-
005

8.3000e-
004

0.0000

3.2008

5.1000e-
004

4.0000e-
004

3.3329
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

0.3931

0.0000

0.3931

0.2021

0.0000

0.2021

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.1866

1.3985

0.5263

9.0000e-
003

0.0863

0.0000

80.0091

0.0152

0.0000

80.3894
Total

0.1866

1.3985

0.5263

9.0000e-
003

0.3931

0.0863

0.4794

0.2021

0.0863

0.2884

0.0000

80.0091

0.0152

0.0000

80.3894
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM

Page 10 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU - Tulare County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Site Preparation - 2005
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

6.3200e-
003

8.0700e-
003

0.0643

3.0000e-
005

2.8700e-
003

8.0000e-
005

2.9400e-
003

7.6000e-
004

7.0000e-
005

8.3000e-
004

0.0000

3.2008

5.1000e-
004

4.0000e-
004

3.3329
Total

6.3200e-
003

8.0700e-
003

0.0643

3.0000e-
005

2.8700e-
003

8.0000e-
005

2.9400e-
003

7.6000e-
004

7.0000e-
005

8.3000e-
004

0.0000

3.2008

5.1000e-
004

4.0000e-
004

3.3329
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Grading - 2005
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

0.5062

0.0000

0.5062

0.2010

0.0000

0.2010

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.6626

5.6630

2.5349

0.0376

0.2879

0.0000
359.8995
359.8995

0.0540

0.0000
361.2488
Total

0.6626

5.6630

2.5349

0.0376

0.5062

0.2879

0.7941

0.2010

0.2879

0.4889

0.0000
359.8995
359.8995

0.0540

0.0000
361.2488
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM

Page 11 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU - Tulare County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.3 Grading - 2005
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0193

0.0247

0.1965

1.1000e-
004

8.7600e-
003

2.3000e-
004

8.9900e-
003

2.3300e-
003

2.1000e-
004

2.5400e-
003

0.0000

9.7802

1.5500e-
003

1.2200e-
003

10.1837
Total

0.0193

0.0247

0.1965

1.1000e-
004

8.7600e-
003

2.3000e-
004

8.9900e-
003

2.3300e-
003

2.1000e-
004

2.5400e-
003

0.0000

9.7802

1.5500e-
003

1.2200e-
003

10.1837
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

0.5062

0.0000

0.5062

0.2010

0.0000

0.2010

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.6626

5.6630

2.5349

0.0376

0.2879

0.0000
359.8991
359.8991

0.0540

0.0000
361.2484
Total

0.6626

5.6630

2.5349

0.0376

0.5062

0.2879

0.7941

0.2010

0.2879

0.4889

0.0000
359.8991
359.8991

0.0540

0.0000
361.2484
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM

Page 12 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU - Tulare County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.3 Grading - 2005
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0193

0.0247

0.1965

1.1000e-
004

8.7600e-
003

2.3000e-
004

8.9900e-
003

2.3300e-
003

2.1000e-
004

2.5400e-
003

0.0000

9.7802

1.5500e-
003

1.2200e-
003

10.1837
Total

0.0193

0.0247

0.1965

1.1000e-
004

8.7600e-
003

2.3000e-
004

8.9900e-
003

2.3300e-
003

2.1000e-
004

2.5400e-
003

0.0000

9.7802

1.5500e-
003

1.2200e-
003

10.1837
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Building Construction - 2005
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.4134

2.2795

1.1214

0.0167

0.1914

0.0000
144.5736
144.5736

0.0337

0.0000
145.4170
Total

0.4134

2.2795

1.1214

0.0167

0.1914

0.0000
144.5736
144.5736

0.0337

0.0000
145.4170
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM

Page 13 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU - Tulare County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2005
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0239

0.2277

0.0908

1.8200e-
003

5.4500e-
003

8.9400e-
003

0.0144

1.5800e-
003

8.5500e-
003

0.0101

0.0000

20.1238

1.1000e-
003

3.0400e-
003

21.0571
Worker

0.0473

0.0604

0.4813

2.6000e-
004

0.0215

5.7000e-
004

0.0220

5.7100e-
003

5.3000e-
004

6.2300e-
003

0.0000

23.9615

3.8000e-
003

3.0000e-
003

24.9501
Total

0.0712

0.2880

0.5721

2.0800e-
003

0.0269

9.5100e-
003

0.0364

7.2900e-
003

9.0800e-
003

0.0164

0.0000

44.0854

4.9000e-
003

6.0400e-
003

46.0073
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.4134

2.2795

1.1214

0.0167

0.1914

0.0000
144.5734
144.5734

0.0337

0.0000
145.4168
Total

0.4134

2.2795

1.1214

0.0167

0.1914

0.0000
144.5734
144.5734

0.0337

0.0000
145.4168
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM

Page 14 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU - Tulare County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2005
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0239

0.2277

0.0908

1.8200e-
003

5.4500e-
003

8.9400e-
003

0.0144

1.5800e-
003

8.5500e-
003

0.0101

0.0000

20.1238

1.1000e-
003

3.0400e-
003

21.0571
Worker

0.0473

0.0604

0.4813

2.6000e-
004

0.0215

5.7000e-
004

0.0220

5.7100e-
003

5.3000e-
004

6.2300e-
003

0.0000

23.9615

3.8000e-
003

3.0000e-
003

24.9501
Total

0.0712

0.2880

0.5721

2.0800e-
003

0.0269

9.5100e-
003

0.0364

7.2900e-
003

9.0800e-
003

0.0164

0.0000

44.0854

4.9000e-
003

6.0400e-
003

46.0073
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Building Construction - 2006
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.9770

5.3879

2.6505

0.0395

0.4524

0.0000
341.7193
341.7193

0.0797

0.0000
343.7129
Total

0.9770

5.3879

2.6505

0.0395

0.4524

0.0000
341.7193
341.7193

0.0797

0.0000
343.7129
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM

Page 15 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU - Tulare County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2006
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0565

0.5381

0.2145

4.2900e-
003

0.0129

0.0211

0.0340

3.7300e-
003

0.0202

0.0239

0.0000

47.5654

2.5900e-
003

7.1900e-
003

49.7714
Worker

0.1118

0.1427

1.1376

6.2000e-
004

0.0507

1.3400e-
003

0.0521

0.0135

1.2400e-
003

0.0147

0.0000

56.6364

8.9800e-
003

7.0900e-
003

58.9731
Total

0.1683

0.6808

1.3522

4.9100e-
003

0.0636

0.0225

0.0861

0.0172

0.0215

0.0387

0.0000
104.2017
104.2017

0.0116

0.0143
108.7444
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.9770

5.3878

2.6505

0.0395

0.4524

0.0000
341.7189
341.7189

0.0797

0.0000
343.7124
Total

0.9770

5.3878

2.6505

0.0395

0.4524

0.0000
341.7189
341.7189

0.0797

0.0000
343.7124
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM

Page 16 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU - Tulare County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2006
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0565

0.5381

0.2145

4.2900e-
003

0.0129

0.0211

0.0340

3.7300e-
003

0.0202

0.0239

0.0000

47.5654

2.5900e-
003

7.1900e-
003

49.7714
Worker

0.1118

0.1427

1.1376

6.2000e-
004

0.0507

1.3400e-
003

0.0521

0.0135

1.2400e-
003

0.0147

0.0000

56.6364

8.9800e-
003

7.0900e-
003

58.9731
Total

0.1683

0.6808

1.3522

4.9100e-
003

0.0636

0.0225

0.0861

0.0172

0.0215

0.0387

0.0000
104.2017
104.2017

0.0116

0.0143
108.7444
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Building Construction - 2007
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.9808

5.4086

2.6607

0.0397

0.4541

0.0000
343.0336
343.0336

0.0801

0.0000
345.0348
Total

0.9808

5.4086

2.6607

0.0397

0.4541

0.0000
343.0336
343.0336

0.0801

0.0000
345.0348
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM

Page 17 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU - Tulare County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2007
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0567

0.5402

0.2154

4.3100e-
003

0.0129

0.0212

0.0341

3.7400e-
003

0.0203

0.0240

0.0000

47.7483

2.6000e-
003

7.2100e-
003

49.9628
Worker

0.1122

0.1433

1.1420

6.2000e-
004

0.0509

1.3500e-
003

0.0523

0.0135

1.2500e-
003

0.0148

0.0000

56.8542

9.0100e-
003

7.1200e-
003

59.1999
Total

0.1689

0.6834

1.3574

4.9300e-
003

0.0639

0.0226

0.0864

0.0173

0.0215

0.0388

0.0000
104.6025
104.6025

0.0116

0.0143
109.1627
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.9808

5.4086

2.6607

0.0397

0.4541

0.0000
343.0332
343.0332

0.0801

0.0000
345.0344
Total

0.9808

5.4086

2.6607

0.0397

0.4541

0.0000
343.0332
343.0332

0.0801

0.0000
345.0344
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM

Page 18 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU - Tulare County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2007
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0567

0.5402

0.2154

4.3100e-
003

0.0129

0.0212

0.0341

3.7400e-
003

0.0203

0.0240

0.0000

47.7483

2.6000e-
003

7.2100e-
003

49.9628
Worker

0.1122

0.1433

1.1420

6.2000e-
004

0.0509

1.3500e-
003

0.0523

0.0135

1.2500e-
003

0.0148

0.0000

56.8542

9.0100e-
003

7.1200e-
003

59.1999
Total

0.1689

0.6834

1.3574

4.9300e-
003

0.0639

0.0226

0.0864

0.0173

0.0215

0.0388

0.0000
104.6025
104.6025

0.0116

0.0143
109.1627
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Building Construction - 2008
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.9846

5.4293

2.6709

0.0398

0.4558

0.0000
344.3479
344.3479

0.0804

0.0000
346.3568
Total

0.9846

5.4293

2.6709

0.0398

0.4558

0.0000
344.3479
344.3479

0.0804

0.0000
346.3568
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM

Page 19 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU - Tulare County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2008
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0569

0.5422

0.2162

4.3300e-
003

0.0130

0.0213

0.0343

3.7500e-
003

0.0204

0.0241

0.0000

47.9313

2.6100e-
003

7.2400e-
003

50.1542
Worker

0.1127

0.1438

1.1464

6.2000e-
004

0.0511

1.3500e-
003

0.0525

0.0136

1.2500e-
003

0.0149

0.0000

57.0720

9.0500e-
003

7.1400e-
003

59.4267
Total

0.1696

0.6861

1.3626

4.9500e-
003

0.0641

0.0226

0.0868

0.0173

0.0216

0.0390

0.0000
105.0033
105.0033

0.0117

0.0144
109.5809
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.9846

5.4293

2.6709

0.0398

0.4558

0.0000
344.3475
344.3475

0.0804

0.0000
346.3564
Total

0.9846

5.4293

2.6709

0.0398

0.4558

0.0000
344.3475
344.3475

0.0804

0.0000
346.3564
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM

Page 20 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU - Tulare County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2008
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0569

0.5422

0.2162

4.3300e-
003

0.0130

0.0213

0.0343

3.7500e-
003

0.0204

0.0241

0.0000

47.9313

2.6100e-
003

7.2400e-
003

50.1542
Worker

0.1127

0.1438

1.1464

6.2000e-
004

0.0511

1.3500e-
003

0.0525

0.0136

1.2500e-
003

0.0149

0.0000

57.0720

9.0500e-
003

7.1400e-
003

59.4267
Total

0.1696

0.6861

1.3626

4.9500e-
003

0.0641

0.0226

0.0868

0.0173

0.0216

0.0390

0.0000
105.0033
105.0033

0.0117

0.0144
109.5809
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Building Construction - 2009
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.8155

4.4968

2.2121

0.0330

0.3775

0.0000
285.2042
285.2042

0.0666

0.0000
286.8680
Total

0.8155

4.4968

2.2121

0.0330

0.3775

0.0000
285.2042
285.2042

0.0666

0.0000
286.8680
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM

Page 21 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU - Tulare County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2009
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0471

0.4491

0.1791

3.5800e-
003

0.0108

0.0176

0.0284

3.1100e-
003

0.0169

0.0200

0.0000

39.6988

2.1700e-
003

6.0000e-
003

41.5400
Worker

0.0933

0.1191

0.9495

5.2000e-
004

0.0424

1.1200e-
003

0.0435

0.0113

1.0400e-
003

0.0123

0.0000

47.2696

7.4900e-
003

5.9200e-
003

49.2198
Total

0.1404

0.5682

1.1285

4.1000e-
003

0.0531

0.0188

0.0719

0.0144

0.0179

0.0323

0.0000

86.9684

9.6600e-
003

0.0119

90.7598
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.8155

4.4968

2.2121

0.0330

0.3775

0.0000
285.2039
285.2039

0.0666

0.0000
286.8677
Total

0.8155

4.4968

2.2121

0.0330

0.3775

0.0000
285.2039
285.2039

0.0666

0.0000
286.8677
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM

Page 22 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU - Tulare County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2009
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0471

0.4491

0.1791

3.5800e-
003

0.0108

0.0176

0.0284

3.1100e-
003

0.0169

0.0200

0.0000

39.6988

2.1700e-
003

6.0000e-
003

41.5400
Worker

0.0933

0.1191

0.9495

5.2000e-
004

0.0424

1.1200e-
003

0.0435

0.0113

1.0400e-
003

0.0123

0.0000

47.2696

7.4900e-
003

5.9200e-
003

49.2198
Total

0.1404

0.5682

1.1285

4.1000e-
003

0.0531

0.0188

0.0719

0.0144

0.0179

0.0323

0.0000

86.9684

9.6600e-
003

0.0119

90.7598
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Paving - 2009
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.1273

0.9167

0.3959

5.9300e-
003

0.0580

0.0000

53.0189

0.0104

0.0000

53.2787
Paving

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.1273

0.9167

0.3959

5.9300e-
003

0.0580

0.0000

53.0189

0.0104

0.0000

53.2787
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM

Page 23 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU - Tulare County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Paving - 2009
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

5.7900e-
003

7.3900e-
003

0.0589

3.0000e-
005

2.6300e-
003

7.0000e-
005

2.7000e-
003

7.0000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

7.6000e-
004

0.0000

2.9341

4.7000e-
004

3.7000e-
004

3.0551
Total

5.7900e-
003

7.3900e-
003

0.0589

3.0000e-
005

2.6300e-
003

7.0000e-
005

2.7000e-
003

7.0000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

7.6000e-
004

0.0000

2.9341

4.7000e-
004

3.7000e-
004

3.0551
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.1273

0.9167

0.3959

5.9300e-
003

0.0580

0.0000

53.0189

0.0104

0.0000

53.2786
Paving

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.1273

0.9167

0.3959

5.9300e-
003

0.0580

0.0000

53.0189

0.0104

0.0000

53.2786
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM

Page 24 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU - Tulare County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Paving - 2009
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

5.7900e-
003

7.3900e-
003

0.0589

3.0000e-
005

2.6300e-
003

7.0000e-
005

2.7000e-
003

7.0000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

7.6000e-
004

0.0000

2.9341

4.7000e-
004

3.7000e-
004

3.0551
Total

5.7900e-
003

7.3900e-
003

0.0589

3.0000e-
005

2.6300e-
003

7.0000e-
005

2.7000e-
003

7.0000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

7.6000e-
004

0.0000

2.9341

4.7000e-
004

3.7000e-
004

3.0551
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Paving - 2010
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.0437

0.4821

0.2393

3.5000e-
004

0.0270

0.0249

0.0000

34.5192

0.0101

0.0000

34.7704
Paving

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0437

0.4821

0.2393

3.5000e-
004

0.0270

0.0249

0.0000

34.5192

0.0101

0.0000

34.7704
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM

Page 25 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU - Tulare County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Paving - 2010
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

2.9900e-
003

3.3700e-
003

0.0286

2.0000e-
005

1.8500e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.8800e-
003

4.9000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

5.2000e-
004

0.0000

2.0006

2.3000e-
004

1.8000e-
004

2.0594
Total

2.9900e-
003

3.3700e-
003

0.0286

2.0000e-
005

1.8500e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.8800e-
003

4.9000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

5.2000e-
004

0.0000

2.0006

2.3000e-
004

1.8000e-
004

2.0594
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.0437

0.4821

0.2393

3.5000e-
004

0.0270

0.0249

0.0000

34.5191

0.0101

0.0000

34.7703
Paving

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0437

0.4821

0.2393

3.5000e-
004

0.0270

0.0249

0.0000

34.5191

0.0101

0.0000

34.7703
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM

Page 26 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU - Tulare County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Paving - 2010
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

2.9900e-
003

3.3700e-
003

0.0286

2.0000e-
005

1.8500e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.8800e-
003

4.9000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

5.2000e-
004

0.0000

2.0006

2.3000e-
004

1.8000e-
004

2.0594
Total

2.9900e-
003

3.3700e-
003

0.0286

2.0000e-
005

1.8500e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.8800e-
003

4.9000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

5.2000e-
004

0.0000

2.0006

2.3000e-
004

1.8000e-
004

2.0594
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2010
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Archit. Coating

2.2977

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0225

0.1334

0.0751

1.1000e-
004

0.0121

0.0000

9.5747

1.8400e-
003

0.0000

9.6206
Total

2.3202

0.1334

0.0751

1.1000e-
004

0.0121

0.0000

9.5747

1.8400e-
003

0.0000

9.6206
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM

Page 27 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU - Tulare County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2010
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

4.8200e-
003

5.4400e-
003

0.0461

4.0000e-
005

2.9900e-
003

5.0000e-
005

3.0300e-
003

7.9000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

8.4000e-
004

0.0000

3.2267

3.7000e-
004

2.9000e-
004

3.3216
Total

4.8200e-
003

5.4400e-
003

0.0461

4.0000e-
005

2.9900e-
003

5.0000e-
005

3.0300e-
003

7.9000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

8.4000e-
004

0.0000

3.2267

3.7000e-
004

2.9000e-
004

3.3216
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Archit. Coating

2.2977

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0225

0.1334

0.0751

1.1000e-
004

0.0121

0.0000

9.5747

1.8400e-
003

0.0000

9.6206
Total

2.3202

0.1334

0.0751

1.1000e-
004

0.0121

0.0000

9.5747

1.8400e-
003

0.0000

9.6206
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM

Page 28 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU - Tulare County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2010
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

4.8200e-
003

5.4400e-
003

0.0461

4.0000e-
005

2.9900e-
003

5.0000e-
005

3.0300e-
003

7.9000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

8.4000e-
004

0.0000

3.2267

3.7000e-
004

2.9000e-
004

3.3216
Total

4.8200e-
003

5.4400e-
003

0.0461

4.0000e-
005

2.9900e-
003

5.0000e-
005

3.0300e-
003

7.9000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

8.4000e-
004

0.0000

3.2267

3.7000e-
004

2.9000e-
004

3.3216
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM

Page 29 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU - Tulare County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Mitigated

1.6791

3.7858

17.4555

0.0183

1.3399

0.0717

1.4116

0.3594

0.0682

0.4276

0.0000
1,694.587
1 1,694.587
1 0.1784

0.1397
1,740.676
7 Unmitigated

1.6791

3.7858

17.4555

0.0183

1.3399

0.0717

1.4116

0.3594

0.0682

0.4276

0.0000
1,694.587
1 1,694.587
1 0.1784

0.1397
1,740.676
7 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate
Unmitigated
Mitigated
Land Use
Weekday
Saturday
Sunday
Annual VMT
Annual VMT
Single Family Housing
1,283.84
1,297.44
1162.80
3,575,540
3,575,540
Total
1,283.84
1,297.44
1,162.80
3,575,540
3,575,540
Miles
Trip %
Trip Purpose %
Land Use
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW
Primary
Diverted
Pass-by
Single Family Housing

10.80 7.30

7.50 38.40

22.60 39.00
86 11
3 4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use
LDA
LDT1
LDT2
MDV
LHD1
LHD2
MHD
HHD
OBUS
UBUS
MCY
SBUS
MH
Single Family Housing

0.429507

0.063665

0.169256

0.220737

0.045775

0.009077

0.012800

0.013008

0.000941

0.000466

0.026281

0.002075

0.006413
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM

Page 30 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU - Tulare County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000

0.0000
191.4795
191.4795

0.0162

1.9600e-
003
192.4673
Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000

0.0000
191.4795
191.4795

0.0162

1.9600e-
003
192.4673
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0174

0.1489

0.0634

9.5000e-
004

0.0120

0.0000
172.4596
172.4596

3.3100e-
003

3.1600e-
003
173.4844
NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0174

0.1489

0.0634

9.5000e-
004

0.0120

0.0000
172.4596
172.4596

3.3100e-
003

3.1600e-
003
173.4844

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM

Page 31 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU - Tulare County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.23177e
+006

0.0174

0.1489

0.0634

9.5000e-
004

0.0120

0.0000
172.4596
172.4596

3.3100e-
003

3.1600e-
003
173.4844
Total

0.0174

0.1489

0.0634

9.5000e-
004

0.0120

0.0000
172.4596
172.4596

3.3100e-
003

3.1600e-
003
173.4844
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kBTU/yr
tons/yr
MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

3.23177e
+006

0.0174

0.1489

0.0634

9.5000e-
004

0.0120

0.0000
172.4596
172.4596

3.3100e-
003

3.1600e-
003
173.4844
Total

0.0174

0.1489

0.0634

9.5000e-
004

0.0120

0.0000
172.4596
172.4596

3.3100e-
003

3.1600e-
003
173.4844
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM

Page 32 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU - Tulare County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kWh/yr
MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

1.0797e
+006
191.4795

0.0162

1.9600e-
003
192.4673
Total
191.4795

0.0162

1.9600e-
003
192.4673
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kWh/yr
MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

1.0797e
+006
191.4795

0.0162

1.9600e-
003
192.4673
Total
191.4795

0.0162

1.9600e-
003
192.4673
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM

Page 33 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU - Tulare County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Mitigated

9.6165

0.1587

10.3244

0.0150

1.2771

1.2771
112.9917

60.5657
173.5575

2.9900e-
003

0.0111
176.9252
Unmitigated

9.6165

0.1587

10.3244

0.0150

1.2771

1.2771
112.9917

60.5657
173.5575

2.9900e-
003

0.0111
176.9252

0.2298

0.0000

0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.9561

0.0000

0.0000
Hearth

8.3949

0.1461

9.2751

0.0150

1.2716

1.2716
112.9917

58.9162
171.9079

1.1300e-
003

0.0111
175.2291
Landscaping

0.0358

0.0126

1.0493

5.0000e-
005

5.4400e-
003

0.0000

1.6495

1.8600e-
003

0.0000

1.6961
Total

9.6165

0.1587

10.3244

0.0150

1.2771

1.2771
112.9917

60.5657
173.5575

2.9900e-
003

0.0111
176.9252
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM

Page 34 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU - Tulare County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.2298

0.0000

0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.9561

0.0000

0.0000
Hearth

8.3949

0.1461

9.2751

0.0150

1.2716

1.2716
112.9917

58.9162
171.9079

1.1300e-
003

0.0111
175.2291
Landscaping

0.0358

0.0126

1.0493

5.0000e-
005

5.4400e-
003

0.0000

1.6495

1.8600e-
003

0.0000

1.6961
Total

9.6165

0.1587

10.3244

0.0150

1.2771

1.2771
112.9917

60.5657
173.5575

2.9900e-
003

0.0111
176.9252
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM

Page 35 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU - Tulare County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
MT/yr
Mitigated

14.7817

0.2897

6.9400e-
003

24.0935
Unmitigated

14.7817

0.2897

6.9400e-
003

24.0935

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
Mgal
MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

8.86095 /

5.58625

14.7817

0.2897

6.9400e-
003

24.0935
Total

14.7817

0.2897

6.9400e-
003

24.0935
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM

Page 36 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU - Tulare County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
Mgal
MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

8.86095 /

5.58625

14.7817

0.2897

6.9400e-
003

24.0935
Total

14.7817

0.2897

6.9400e-
003

24.0935
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated

28.4269

1.6800

0.0000

70.4263
Unmitigated

28.4269

1.6800

0.0000

70.4263
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM

Page 37 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU - Tulare County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
tons
MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
140.04

28.4269

1.6800

0.0000

70.4263
Total

28.4269

1.6800

0.0000

70.4263
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
tons
MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
140.04

28.4269

1.6800

0.0000

70.4263
Total

28.4269

1.6800

0.0000

70.4263
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type
Number
Hours/Day
Days/Year
Horse Power
Load Factor
Fuel Type
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM

Page 38 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU - Tulare County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

11.0 Vegetation

Page 39 of 39 ends

Barr-Wood Subdivision, 2005 BAU - Tulare County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Appendix B

Biological Evaluation

Biological Resource Assessment
Barr-Wood Subdivision Development Project
Assessor Parcel Number 119-022-041
Visalia, CA

Prepared for

324 South Santa Fe Street, Suite A
Visalia, CA 93292

Prepared by

1401 Fulton St, Suite 918
Fresno, CA 93721

July 1, 2022

Page 2 of 25 ends

Executive Summary

The developer 4Creeks, Inc. (4Creeks) seeks to construct the Barr-Wood Housing Subdivision (Project) on the corner of Roeben Street and West Whitendale Avenue in Visalia, California. Currently, the project site is 69.35 acres of farmland on APN 119 -022-041. 4Creeks has tasked Soar Environmental Consulting Inc. (Soar Environmental) to provide a Biological Re sources Assessment (BRA) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), prior to implementation of the proposed Project.

The objectives of this Assessment were to: 1) provide a general characterization of biological resources for the property; 2) inventory plant and wildlife species; 3) evaluate the potential for federal or state listed plants and animals species afforded other special regulatory protection; and 4) describe the property’s sensitive biological resources and applicable federal, state, and local land use policies.

This BRA provides information about the biological resources within the Project footprint . Prior to conducting a habitat assessment (i.e., site visit for biological resources) , Soar Environmental researched the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, to compile a list of special-status species that could potentially be present in the vicinity of the Project area. Soar Environmental researched specific species and habitat requirements for the species noted in the CNDDB, IPaC and CNPS databases and included species listing status, and proximal species observations in this report.

No special-status plant or wildlife species were observed in the Project area during the field survey on June 27, 2022. Based on the Literature Review (Section 2.1 of this report) special-status species that have the potential to occur in the Project area based on documented occurrences in the vicinity include:
• San Joaquin kit fox
• Swainson's hawk
• vernal pool fairy shrimp
• yellow-billed cuckoo

All other special-status species identified in the record search are unlikely to occur in the Project area, due to lack of suitable habitat, proximity, and time since historical occurrences . No listed species were observed during the habitat assessment of the Project site, and no suitable habitat features, or conditions were observed that would be conducive for any of the special status species identified in this report.

Page 3 of 25 ends

Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 2

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Project Location ............................................................................................................................. 5

1.2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................... 6

2. Methods ................................................................................................................................................ 8

2.1 Literature Review ........................................................................................................................... 8

2.2 Field Reconnaissance Methodology ............................................................................................. 10

3. Habitat Assessment Results ................................................................................................................. 11

4. Special-Status Species ......................................................................................................................... 12

4.1 Special-Status Wildlife Species Descriptions ................................................................................ 17

4.1.1 San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) ......................................................................... 17

4.1.2 Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsonii) ...................................................................................... 17

4.1.3 Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Brachinecta lynchi) ........................................................................ 17

4.1.4. Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) ........................................ 17

5. Findings ............................................................................................................................................... 18

7. Study Limitations ................................................................................................................................. 18

8. Works Cited ......................................................................................................................................... 19

List of Figures
Figure 1. Project Location ......................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2 – Project Site Boundary ............................................................................................................... 7 Figure 3 – Site Plan .................................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 4 – Historical Special-status Species Locations Proximate to the Project Site .............................. 10

List of Tables
Table 1– Wildlife and Plant Species Observed On Project Site ................................................................ 11 Table 2 – Potentially Occurring Listed Wildlife Species ........................................................................... 13 Table 3 – Potentially Occurring Listed Plant Species ............................................................................... 16

Page 4 of 25 ends

APPENDIX A: Site Photos .......................................................................................................................... 200 Photo 1 – Northern Boundary (View East) .......................................................................................... 21 Photo 2 – Eastern Boundary (View South) .......................................................................................... 21 Photo 3 – Southern Boundary (View West) ......................................................................................... 22 Photo 4 – Western Boundary (View North) ......................................................................................... 22 Photo 5 – Center of Project Site (North to South) ............................................................................... 23 Photo 6 – Center of Project Site (South to North) ............................................................................... 23 Photo 7 – Center of Project Site (East to West) ................................................................................... 24 Photo 8 – Center of Project Site (West to East) ................................................................................... 24 Photo 9 – Southeast Panhandle of Project Boundary (View East) ....................................................... 25 Photo 10 – Canal Dividing Panhandle from the Rest of the Project Site ............................................. 25

Page 5 of 25 ends

1. Introduction

The proposed Project is a housing subdivision to be constructed on 69.35 acres of fallow farmland in the city of Visalia, Visalia County , California. Soar Environmental Consulting, Inc. (Soar Environmental) has prepared this Biological Resource Assessment (BRA) for 4Creeks, Inc. (4Creeks) in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements.

A review of California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) was conducted to identify sensitive wildlife species. Results indicated a habitat assessment would be necessary to search for potential suitable habitat or presence for the 1 7 following sensitive wildlife species : Two a mphibian species include:

California red -legged frog, and California tiger salamander. Three b ird species: Swainson's hawk, tricolored blackbird, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. One fish species: delta smelt. Five invertebrates:
vernal pool fairy shrimp, conservancy fairy shrimp, monarch butterfly, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp. Four mammals: Fresno kangaroo rat, Tipton kangaroo rat, fisher, and San Joaquin kit fox. Two reptiles were identified: blunt-nosed leopard lizard, and giant garter snake.

Potential sensitive plant species were reviewed using the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California and CNDDB records. The data records search identified the following 6 sensitive plant species historically occurring in the vicinity of the Project s ite: California jewelflower, Hoover's Spurge , San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass, San Joaquin adobe sunburst, and Greene's tuctoria.

A habitat assessment was conducted in the Project area on June 27, 2022, by Soar Environmental biologist Ben Arax. The purpose of the Habitat Assessment Survey was to search for the presence of special-status species or suitable habitats that have historically been observed within, or surrounding, the Project area.

No special-status species were observed during the site visit, and no suitable habitat was observed for any of the sensitive species identified in this report.

1.1 Project Location

The Project site is located on the northwest corner of Roeben Street and West Whitendale Avenue in Visalia, California. It is on the western edge of the City , in an agricultural and residential interface environment, approximately 1.25 miles east of State Route (SR) 99 and 1.4 miles south of State Route (SR) 198. It is comprised of Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 119-022-041. In the USGS 7.5-minute Quadrangle of Visalia, it can be found in Township 19 South, Range 24 East, section 3, NW ¼ section, South 1/8. A map to the Project site location is depicted in Figure 1.

Page 6 of 25 ends

Figure 1. Project Location

1.2 Environmental Setting

Land use in the area is agricultural and residential. The Project site is approximately 1 .25 miles east of State Route (SR) 99, and 1.4 miles south of SR 198. Agricultural land becomes more prevalent to the west while land use to the east is largely urbanized. The project area is rectangular with a Panhandle extending from the southeast corner. The Panhandle is divided by an irrigation canal running north and south, and the rest of the project area is divided by a natural surface road that runs east to west through the center of the property. The project site is bounded by residential neighborhoods to the north and east, separated by a wooden fence. Agricultural land borders west and southern boundaries with orchard trees to the west and a cattle ranch to the South.

The topography of the area is completely flat at approximately 300 feet elevation, vegetative ground cover was recently mowed. There are no structures on the property, no trees or bushes that would provide adequate habitat for nesting birds , and there were no small mamm al Burrows that would provide adequate refuge for San Joaquin kitfox . Powerline poles exist along the main roads, but not on the

Page 7 of 25 ends

property itself, and did not appear to harbor any raptor nests. The irrigation canal on the east side of the property has dir t roads on both sides of the canal with little to no vegetation . There were no signs of pooling water or vernal pool habitat within the Project site.

Figure 1 – Project Site Boundary

Page 8 of 25 ends

Figure 3 – Site Plan

2. Methods

2.1 Literature Review

Prior to performing the habitat assessment, Soar Environmental conducted a records search for threatened or endangered species that could potentially occur in the vicinity of the Project area . The records search included a review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Online Rare Plant Inventory. The area covered by the data records search included USGS 7.5 minute quadrangles of Visalia, Cairns Corner, Exeter, Goshen, Ivanhoe, Monson, Paige, Traver, and Tulare 7.5-minute USGS quadrangles . From these sources a list of special- status plant and animal species was generated. Proximal locations of special -status plant and animal species located within 5 miles of the Project site are shown in (Figure 4).

Based on a review of CNDDB records (conducted April 7, 2022) it was determined there was potential for 13 State listed special-status species to occur within or in the vicinity of the Project site (listed below). • California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) • San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica)

Page 9 of 25 ends

• Swainson's hawk
• Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides) • Tricolored blackbird
• Valley elderberry longhorn beetle
• Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi)
• Vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi)
• Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) • California Jewelflower
• Hoover's spurge (Euphorbia hooveri)
• San Joaquin adobe sunburst (Pseudobahia peirsonii)
• San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass (Orcuttia inaequalis)

A search of the IPaC database indicated 11 additional Federally listed sensitive wildlife and plant species likely to occur within or near the Project site include:
• Blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia silus)
• California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii)
• Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio)
• Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus)
• Fisher (Pekania pennanti)
• Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides exilis)
• Giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas)
• Monarch butterfly (Danuas plexippus)
• Greene's tuctoria (Tuctoria greenei)
• Succulent owl's-clover (Castilleja campestris ssp. Succulenta)

A search of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Online Rare Plant Invento ry did not identify any additional plant species that were not identified in the CNDDB or IPaC records search.

No special-status plant or wildlife species were observed in the Project area during the habitat assessment on June 27, 2022. However, based on a review of CNDDB, IPaC, and CNPS, and analysis of proximal historic occurrences, records indicated potential presence of the following special-status species. • San Joaquin kit fox
• Swainson's hawk
• vernal pool fairy shrimp
• yellow-billed cuckoo

Page 10 of 25 ends

Figure 4 – Historical Special-status Species Locations Proximate to the Project Site

This map shows the closest and most recent special-status species locations from the CNDDB, IPaC, and CNPS Online Rare Plant Inventory

2.2 Field Reconnaissance Methodology

On June 27, 2022, Soar Environmental biologist Ben Arax conducted a habitat assessment on the property for the above mentioned species. Walking the perimeter of the property, and meandering transects throughout the Project area, the surveyor searched for bird nests, possible small mammal dens, identified vegetation, and looked for vernal pools or other signs of wildlife occupancy. Survey efforts emphasized the search for special-status species and associated suitable habitats, that had documented occurrences in the data records search of the CNDDB, IPaC, and CNPS databases. The surrounding area was also surveyed by vehicle in accessible areas within 0.5 miles of the Project site, to look for biological resources and features that may be conducive for suitable habitat of the identified special- status species. Photos were taken of the Project boundaries, center of the Project site in 4 cardinal directions, and other points of interest depicting the habitat and potential biological resources (Appendix A).

Page 11 of 25 ends

3. Habitat Assessment Results

During the habitat assessment, there were no observations of special-status plant or wildlife species. The Project site is an inactive agricultural field on the western edge of the City, with active agricultural land to the west and an urbanized residential environment to the east. A red tailed hawk and several other bird species were observed during the site visit, however there are no trees or bushes tha t would provide adequate refugia for the nesting bird species identified in this report, and no raptor nests were observed on any of the power line poles within the vicinity of the Project site. There were no signs of pooling water or vernal pools that would provide suitable habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp . The ground was highly visible from recent mowing, and no small mammal burrows were observed anywhere on the property that would provide adequate refugia for San Joaquin kit fox.

Although no special-status plant or wildlife species were observed during the site visit, Soar Environmental biologists observed some common reptile and bird species flying around the area , listed in ( Table 1 ) below, along with plant species observed onsite . No other wildlife species were observed during the habitat assessment.

Table 1– Wildlife and Plant Species Observed On Project Site

Wildlife Species Observed Listing Status Plant Species Observed Listing Status American crow
(Corvus brachyrhynchos) MTBA Common wild oat
(Avena fatua) None
Brown-headed cowbird
(Molothrus ater) MTBA Cutleaf geranium
(Geranium dissectum) None
Great egret
(Ardea alba) MTBA Field bindweed
(Convolvulus arvensis) None
House finch
(Haemorhous mexicanus) MTBA Great brome
(Bromus diandrus) None
House sparrow
(Passer domesticus) MTBA Mediterranean barley
(Hordeum marinum) None
Killdeer
(Charadrius vociferus) MTBA Narrowleaf plantain
(Plantago lanceolata) None
Lesser goldfinch
(Spinus psaltria) MTBA Ripgut brome
(Bromus diandrus) None
Mourning dove
(Zenaida macroura) None Russian thistle
(Salsola tragus) None
Northern mockingbird
(Mimus polyglottos) MTBA Poison hemlock
(Conium maculatum) None
Red-tailed hawk
(Buteo jamaicensis) MTBA Prickly lettuce
(Lactuca serriola) None

Page 12 of 25 ends

Rock pigeon
(Columba livia) None Seaside barley
(Hordeum marinum) None
Western kingbird
(Tyrannus verticalis) MTBA Wall barley
(Hordeum murinum) None
Common side-blotched lizard
(Uta stansiburana) None Wild oat
(Avena fatua) None
Western fence lizard
(Sceloporus occidentalis) None Yellow star-thistle
(Centaurea solstitialis) None

4. Special-Status Species

Special-status plants and animals that have a reasonable possibility to occur in the Project area based on habitat suitability and requirements, elevation and geographic range, soils, topography, surrounding land uses, and proximity of known occurrences in the CNDDB, IPaC, and CNPS databases to the Project area are listed in Tables 2 and 3 . The likel ihood for occurrence of special- status species was assessed using information from the various listed sources , wildlife and botanical surveys. Narratives are provided for species for which there are land use planning and regulatory implications. Special-status species for which there are no habitat features are excluded from consideration due to the lack of suitable habitat and distance from the subject property.

Based upon a review of the resources and databases listed in Section 2.1 (Literature Review) for the Visalia, Cairns Corner, Exeter, Goshen, Ivanhoe, Monson, Paige, Traver, and Tulare USGS 7.5 -minute quadrangles; it was determined that 19 special-status plant species have been documented in the vicinity of the Project area. Of these 19 special-status species, 3 were determined to have a moderate potential for occurrence, and 4 species was determined to have potential for occurrence.

Species with Potential for Occurrence:
• San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica)
• Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni)
• Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi)
• Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis)

Special-status species and sensitive habitats include plant and wildlife taxa, or other unique biological features that are afforded special protection by local land use policies, state and federal regulations.

Special-status plant and animal species are those that are listed as rare, threatened, or endangered under the state or federal Endangered Species Acts. Vegetation communities may warrant special- status if they are of limited distribution, have high wildlife value, or are particularly vulnerable to disturbance. Listed and special-status species are defined as:
• Listed or proposed for listing under the state or Federal Endangered Species acts. • Protected under other regulations (e.g., Migratory Bird Treaty Act). • CDFG Species of Special Concern.
• Listed as species of concern by CNPS or USFWS; or

Page 13 of 25 ends

• Receive consideration during environmental review under CEQA.

Special-status species considered for this analysis are based on field survey results, review of the CNDDB occurrence records of species, review of the USFWS lists for special-status species occurring in the region, and CNPS literature (Tables 2 and 3).
• Present: Species known to occur on the site, based on CNDDB records, and/or was observed on the site during the field survey.
• High: Species known to occur on or near the site (based on CNDDB records within 8 km or 5 mi) and there is suitable habitat on the site.
• Low: Species known to occur in the vicinity of the site, and there is marginal habitat onsite. -OR- Species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the site, however there is suitable habitat on the site.
• None: Species is not known to occur on or in the vicinity of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the species on the site. -OR- Species was surveyed for during the appropriate season with negative results.

Table 2 – Potentially Occurring Listed Wildlife Species Common/ Scientific Name Listing
Status* Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence
Amphibians
California red-legged frog
(Rana draytonii) FT, SSC
Standing waters,
freshwater wetland.

Forest, scrub, woodland
riparian areas. Requires a
breeding pond, slow-
flowing stream. Will use
small mammal burrows.

None: Species is not
known to occur in the
vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable habitat
for the species on the site.

California tiger salamander
(Ambystoma californiense) FT, ST
Grasslands, oak savannah
riparian woodlands, lower
elevations of coniferous
forests, ditches, vernal
pools, and wetlands.

None: Species is not
known to occur in the
vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable habitat
for the species on the site.

Birds
Swainson's hawk
(Buteo swainsoni) ST, MBTA
Nests in isolated trees or
riparian woodlands
adjacent to suitable
foraging habitat
(agricultural fields,
grasslands, etc.).

Low: Species known to
occur in the vicinity of the
site, and there is marginal
habitat onsite.

Tricolored blackbird
(Agelaius tricolor)

ST, BCC,
MBTA
Found in areas near water,
such as marshes,
grasslands, and wetlands.

They require some sort of
None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable habitat

Page 14 of 25 ends

substrate nearby to build
nests.
for the species on the site.

Western yellow-billed cuckoo
(Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis)

FT, SE,
MBTA
Woodlands near streams
or lakes, abandoned
farmland, old fruit
orchards, successional
shrubland and dense
thickets.

None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable habitat
for the species on the site.

Fish
Delta smelt
(Hypomesus transpacificus) FT
Shallow, fresh, or slightly
brackish backwater
sloughs and edge waters,
and substrate for
spawning.

None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable habitat
for the species on the site.

Invertebrates
Conservancy fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta conservatio) FE
Inhabit large, cool-
water vernal pools from
early November to early
April, which fill with water
in the rainy season, then
slowly dry up.

None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable habitat
for the species on the site.

Monarch butterfly
(Danaus plexippus) FC
Roosts located in wind-
protected tree groves
(eucalyptus, Monterey
pine, cypress), with nectar
and water sources nearby.

None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable habitat
for the species on the site.

Valley elderberry longhorn
beetle
(Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus)
FT
Occurs only in the Central
Valley of California, in
association with blue
elderberry (Sambucus
mexicana), in riparian
scrub
None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable habitat
for the species on the site.

Vernal pool fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi) FT
Coastal mountains, in
valley foothills grasslands,
vernal pools, and
wetlands.

None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable habitat
for the species on the site.

Vernal pool tadpole shrimp
(Lepidurus packardi) FE
Vernal pools, (hardpan,
duripan, or claypan),
grassland. Pools
commonly found in grass-
bottomed or mud-
bottomed swales.

None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable habitat
for the species on the site.

Mammals

Page 15 of 25 ends

Fisher
(Pekania pennanti) FE
Occurs in intermediate to
large-tree stages of
coniferous forests and
deciduous-riparian
habitats with a high
percent canopy closure.

None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable habitat
for the species on the site.

Fresno kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys nitratoides exilis) FE, SE
Arid and alkaline plains
under shrub and grass
vegetation, coastal scrub,
open stages of chaparral,
and desert scrub habitats,
and in conifer woodlands.

None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable habitat
for the species on the site.

San Joaquin kit fox
(Vulpes macrotis mutica) FE, SE
Arid flat grasslands,
scrublands, and alkali
meadows with short
vegetation.

None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable habitat
for the species on the site.

Tipton kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys nitratoides
nitratoides)
FE, SE
Arid and alkaline plains
under shrub and grass
vegetation, coastal scrub,
open stages of chaparral,
and desert scrub habitats,
and in conifer woodlands.

None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable habitat
for the species on the site.

Reptiles
Blunt-nosed leopard lizard
(Gambelia sila) FE, SE
Semi-arid grasslands, alkali
flats, and washes, utilize
shrubs and small mammal
burrows.

None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable habitat
for the species on the site.

Giant garter snake
(Thamnophis gigas) FT
Marshes, sloughs,
drainage canals, irrigation
ditches, and prefers
locations with vegetation
close to water for basking.

None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable habitat
for the species on the site.

*Listing Status Notes:

Federal: FE – Federally listed Endangered
FT – Federally listed Threatened
FC – Federal Candidate Species
WL – USFWS Watch list
BCC – USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern
MTBA – Migratory Bird Treaty Act

State: SE – State listed Endangered
ST – State listed Threatened
SC – State Candidate Species
SR – State Rare Species
SA – State Special Animal
FP – CDFW Fully Protected Species
SSC – CDFW Species of Special Concern
WL – CDFW Watch List

Page 16 of 25 ends

Table 3 – Potentially Occurring Listed Plant Species
Common/ Scientific Name
*Status
Fed/CA/CNPS
/ Bloom
Period
Habitat Description Habitat
Present/ Absent
California jewelflower
(Caulanthus californicus)
FE/CE/1B.1/
Feb-May
Chenopod scrub, pinyon-
Juniper woodland, valley
and foothill grassland
Absent
Greene's tuctoria
(Tuctoria greenei)
FE/SR/1B.1/
May-Jul
Vernal pools, hardpan,
tuffaceous alluvium, or
claypan
Absent
Hoover's spurge
(Euphorbia hooveri)
1B.2/
June-Oct
Vernal pools/<800 ft
elevaiton
Absent
San Joaquin adobe sunburst
(Pseudobahia peirsonii)
FT/CE/1B.1/
Feb-Apr
Cismontane woodland,
valley and foothill grassland,
adobe clay
Absent
San Joaquin Valley Orcutt
grass
(Orcuttia inaequalis)
FT/CE/1B.1/
Apr-Sep Vernal pools
Absent
Succulent owl's-clover
(Castilleja campestris ssp.

Succulenta)
1B.2
(Mar) Apr-May
Vernal pools
(50 – 750 m; 165-2460 ft)
Absent

*Listing Status Notes:

Federal: FE – Federally listed Endangered
FT – Federally listed Threatened
FC – Federal Candidate Species
State: SE – State listed Endangered
ST – State listed Threatened
SC – State Candidate Species
SR – State Rare Species

CRPR: California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Rank CBR – Considered but Rejected
1B – Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA and elsewhere 2 – Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA but common elsewhere 4 – Limited distribution (Watch-list)
CBR – Considered but Rejected
CRPR Extensions 0.1 – Seriously endangered in California

0.2 – Fairly endangered in California

0.3 – Not very endangered in California

Page 17 of 25 ends

4.1 Special-Status Wildlife Species Descriptions

4.1.1 San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica)
The San Joaquin kit fox is listed as Threatened at the Federal level and Endangered at the State level. They are petite, light -colored canids, approximately 50 centimeters (20 inches) in length, with bushy, black - tipped tails, large ears, and pointed snouts.

San Joaquin kit fox is a desert-adapted species which occurs mainly in arid, flat grasslands, scrublands, and alkali meadows where the vegetation structure is relatively short. This species uses dens year-round and needs loose-textured soils suitable for burrowing. They primarily prey on kangaroo rats and other small rodents, as well as large insects and occasionally rabbits. A typical kit fox den is anywhere from four to 10 inches in diameter, and is taller than it is wide, often with a k eyhole shape. D ens usually have dirt berms and matted vegetation adjacent to the entrances, and tracks and prey remains will normally be detected nearby. SJKF may also utilize man-made structures such as pipes and culverts as dens.

4.1.2 Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsonii)
Swainson’s hawk is listed as Threatened on the State level. favoring 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, Swainson’s hawk will nest on a power pole or transmission tower.

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.

4.1.3 Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Brachinecta lynchi)
Vernal pool fairy shrimp is listed as Threatened on the Federal level and has no listing on the State level.

Measuring 2.5 centimeters (one inch) long, translucent crustaceans with 11 pairs of appendages. Thy 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.

4.1.4. Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) Yellow-billed cuckoos have uniform grayish-brown plumage on their head and back, and dull white underparts. Their tails are long with two rows of four to six large white circles on the underside. The bill of yellow-billed cuckoos is short to medium in length and curved downward with a black upper mandible and a yellow or orange lower mandible. Yellow-billed cuckoos have zygodactylous feet, meaning that of the four toes, the middle two point forward and the outer two point backward.

Yellow-billed cuckoos prefer open woodlands with clearings and a dense shrub layer. They are often found in woodlands near streams, rivers or lakes. In North America, their preferred habitats include abandoned farmland, old fruit orchards, successional shrubland and dense thickets. In winter, yellow- billed cuckoos can be found in tropical habitats with similar structure, such as scrub forest and mangroves.

Page 18 of 25 ends

5. Findings

During the Habitat Assessment, Soar Environmental did not observe any of the referenced special-status species within the Project site or environmental footprint. From the information gathered in the data records search and analysis of the habitat on site, the following 4 special- status species were found to have the highest potential for occurrence in the vicinity of the Project site: 1) San Joaquin kit fox, 2) Swainson's hawk, 3) vernal pool fairy shrimp, and 4) western yellow -billed cuckoo. However, due to habitat quality and proximity of historical occurrences, all of these species were found to be unlikely to occur within the vicinity of the Project site. Based on the findings of this assessment, the proposed development of this property is unlikely to adversely affect any special-status species and is likely to have no effect for CEQA considerations.

The Project site consists of 69.35 acres of an inactive agricultural field. The ground is highly disturbed and compacted from previous agricultural activities. Land use in the surrounding area is urban and residential to the east, becoming orchards and agricultural land to the west. There is an irrigation ditch on the eastern side of the property with little to no vegetation around it. There are no vernal pools or wetlands in the area that would provide suitable habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp, or any other aquatic special-status species identified in this report.

Although a red -tailed hawk And several other common bird species were observed flying through the area, there were no raptor nests observed within a 0.5 miles search around the Project footprint. Due to agricultural activities, the orchard trees in the area do not provide suitable refugia for nesting birds. There are no trees or bushes in the area that would provide adeq uate nesting habitat for red -tailed hawk , western yellow-billed cuckoo, or any of the special-status bird species identified in this report.

No signs of San Joaquin kit fox were observed during the habitat assessment, and suitable habitat for this species is poor within the surrounding areas. The ground was highly visible from recent mowing, and no small mammal burrows were observed anywhere on the property that would provide adequate refugia for San Joaquin kit fox.

6. Recommendations
No listed species were observed during the Habitat Assessment of the Project site, and no suitable habitat features, or conditions were observed that would be conducive for any of the aforementioned species.

The proposed development of this parcel is unlikely to adversely affect any special- status species. Soar Environmental Consulting, Inc. recommends that if any special status species are observed during construction activities, work be stopped immediately and CDFW is contacted.

7. Study Limitations
This Report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted environmental methodologies and contains all the limitations inherent in these methodologies. The Report 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 Report.

Page 19 of 25 ends

8. Works Cited

Calflora. (2022). Taxon Report. Retrieved from https://www.calflora.org

California Diversity Database (CNDDB). California Department of Fish and Wildlife RareFind.

Retrieved from https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (2022). Information for Planning and Consultation. https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov

California Native Plant Society. CNPS Rare Plant Inventory. https://rareplants.cnps.org

CDFW. (17 June 2013). California’s Vernal Pools. Retrieved from https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Plants/Vernal-Pools

Audubon Guide to North American Birds. (2022). https://www.audubon.org Center for Biological Diversity. (2022). Retrieved from https://www.biologicaldiversity.org

eBird Database, Cornell University Lab of Ornithology. (2022). Retrieved from https://ebird.org

United States Geological Survey (USGS). (2022). NAS - Nonindigenous Aquatic Species. U.S. Department of the Interior. https://nas.er.usgs.gov/

Stephen Ward McCabe. University of California, Berkeley. The Jepson Herbarium. Vascular Plants of California. Thiede 2003 in Eggli (ed.) Illus Handbook Succulent Pls 6 (Crassulaceae):85--103. Springer. https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/eflora

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1999). Standardized Recommendations for the Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance. Retrieved from https://www.wildlife.ca.gov /Conservation/Survey-
Protocols#377281285-mammals

Gary M. Fellers and Kathleen L. Freel. A Standardized Protocol for Surveying Aquatic Amphibians.

Technical Report NPS/WRUC/NRTR-95-01 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service - Western Region National Biological Service - Cooperative Park Studies Unit The University of California - Davis, California. May 1995

Page 20 of 25 ends

APPENDIX A

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

Project Area

Page 21 of 25 ends

Photo 1 – Northern Boundary (View East)

Photo 2 – Eastern Boundary (View South)

Page 22 of 25 ends

Photo 3 – Southern Boundary (View West)

Photo 4 – Western Boundary (View North)

Page 23 of 25 ends

Photo 5 – Center of Project Site (North to South)

Photo 6 – Center of Project Site (South to North)

Page 24 of 25 ends

Photo 7 – Center of Project Site (East to West)

Photo 8 – Center of Project Site (West to East)

Page 25 of 25 ends

Photo 9 – Southeast Panhandle of Project Boundary (View East)

Photo 10 – Canal Dividing Panhandle from the Rest of the Project Site

Appendix C
Cultural Records Search Results
USGS Visalia 7.5’ topographic quadrangle

69.35-acre project boundary; intensive pedestrian survey Keywords: South Fork Persian Ditch
Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment for the
Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map 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
July 2022

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Taylored Archaeology completed a Phase I cultural resource assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project (Project). Barr and Wood is an unincorporated property southwest of the City of Visalia in Tulare County, California. The Project proposes to construct a single-family residential development comprised of approximately 136 residential lots with park strip landscaping, streets, streetlights, sidewalks and a pond . In order to obtain development approval from the City of Visalia, the Project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City of Visalia is the Lead Agency under CEQA for this Project.

To assess for cultu ral resources in conjunction with CEQA, Taylored Archaeology conducted a cultural resource study under contract with 4Creeks, Inc. to assess wh ether cultural resources are present with the Project boundary. This investigation included: (1) 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) a Sacred Lands File Search from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) ; (3) archival research ; (4) an archaeological pedestrian survey and (5) preparing California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms.

The SSJVIC r eported that two previous cultural resource investigations have been conducted within the Project area and no cultural resources were recorded within the Project area. Taylored Archaeology reviewed the two cultural resource investigations (TU -00041 and TU-01190) and determined both are literature reviews and not surveys of the Project area. The SSJVIC identified five previous investigations and two recorded historical resources within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project boundary: 3431 South Shirk Street, a rural residential home (P-54-005058) and 6440 West Cadwell Avenue, a rural residential home (P-54-005059).

The NAHC stated a search of its Sacred Lands File was negative . Local tribes were previously contacted by the City of Visalia under Assembly Bill 52. The pedestrian survey of the Project site did not identify any prehistoric resources on the ground surface. However, a segment of the South Fork Persian Ditch was identified and recorded on California Department of Pa rks and Recreation forms but was not formally evaluated for significance and elig ibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or California Register of Historical Resources . According to the Project description, the ditch will remain open in its present condition with only a single bridge crossing the ditch within the Project boundary. Because the Project proposes no substantial change to the ditch, there is no expected adverse change to this historical resource.

Taylored Archaeology makes the following management recommendations:

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project iii
moving activities in the Project area, all work shall be halted in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot radius) 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 th en identify the Most Likely Descendent who will be afforded an opportunity to make recommendations regarding the treatment and disposition of the remains. A copy of this report will be provided to the SSJVIC for inclusion in the CHRIS statewide database.

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project

CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................1

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ..................................................................1

1.2 REGULATORY SETTING .............................................................................................1

1.2.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT .............................................2

1.3 PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................2

1.4 REPORT STRUCTURE ................................................................................................6 2 PROJECT SETTING ................................................................................................................7

2.1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................7

2.2 PREHISTORIC SETTING .............................................................................................8

2.3 ETHNOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................9

2.4 HISTORIC SETTING ..................................................................................................10

2.4.1 California History .......................................................................................10

2.4.2 Central California History ...........................................................................11

2.4.3 Local History ...............................................................................................12 3 METHODS ..........................................................................................................................14

3.1 RECORDS SEARCH ..................................................................................................14

3.2 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH .............................................................................................14

3.3 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH .............................................................................14

3.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL PEDESTRIAN SURVEY ...............................................................14 4 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................15

4.1 RECORDS SEARCH ..................................................................................................15

4.2 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH .............................................................................................17

4.3 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH .............................................................................22

4.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL PEDESTRIAN SURVEY RESULTS ................................................22 5 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION ..............................................................................25 6 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................26

APPENDICIES
A Personnel Qualifications
B Records Search Results
C Native American Outreach
D Cultural Resource Record Forms

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project v

FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Project vicinity in Tulare County, California............................................................ 3 Figure 1-2 Project location on the USGS Visalia, CA 7.5-minute quadrangle. ......................... 4 Figure 1-3 Aerial view of the Project boundary showing survey coverage. ............................ 5 Figure 4-1 1885 Irrigation Map, Project site in Section 3 (Hammond 1885) ......................... 17 Figure 4-2 1892 Atlas, Project site in Section 3 (Thompson 1892) ........................................ 18 Figure 4-3 1927 topographic map, Project site in red (USGS 1927) ...................................... 19 Figure 4-4 1950 topographic map, Project site in red (USGS 1950) ...................................... 20 Figure 4-5 Northern portion of the Project site, facing east. ................................................ 23 Figure 4-6 Structure pad on the Project site, facing southeast. ............................................ 23 Figure 4-7 Water pump on the Project site, facing south...................................................... 24 Figure 4-8 South Fork Persian Ditch on the Project site, facing east. .................................... 24 TABLES
Table 4-1 Previous Recorded Cultural Resources within 0.5-miles radius of the Project Area ....................................................................................................................... 15 Table 4-2 Previous Cultural Resource Investigation Reports within the Project Area ......... 15 Table 4-3 Previous Cultural Resource Investigation Reports within 0.5-mile radius of the Project Area .......................................................................................................... 16

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 1 1

INTRODUCTION
Taylored Archaeology performed a Phase I cultural resource assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project (Project) near the city of Visalia, California in unincorporated Tulare County, California . As part of development approval process, the City of Visalia as lead agency must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code [PRC] 21000 [g] mandate that government agencies consider the impacts of a project on the environment, including cultural resources.

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
The proposed Project involves constructing a single-family residential development consisting of approximately 136 lots , a 3.7-acre park, a 1.6-acre stormwater retention basin, and associated paved streets, sidewalks , streetlights, and landscaping. Local streets within the subdivision will be connected to South Shirk Road/ Road 92 to the west, and South Roeben Street to the east .

Local streets will additionally cross over the on -site ditch in a single bridge, and the ditch will remain open in its present condition. The planned maximum excavation of the Project will be the stormwater retention basin at 12 feet below ground surface (bgs ). The Project site will also be annexed into the City of Visalia.

The current Project site consists of 69.35-acres of agricultural land within Tulare County Assessor’s Parcel Number 119-022-041. The Project area is in unincorporated Tulare County near the City of Visalia, California (Figure 1-1). The Project area is visible on the U.S Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Visalia, California, topographic quadrangle in Section 3 of Township 19 South, Range 24 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (Figure 1-2).

1.2 REGULATORY SETTING
In this report “cultural resources” are defined as prehistoric or historical archaeological sites as well as historical objects, buildings, or structures. In accordance with 30 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §60.4, “historical” in this report applies to cultural resources which are at least 50 years old. The significance or importance of a cultural resource is dependent upon whether the resource qualifies for inclusion at the local or state level in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or at the federal level in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

Cultural resources that are determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR are called “historical resources” (California Code of Regulations [CCR] 15064.5[a]). Under this statue the determination of eligibility is partially based on the consideration of the criteria of significance as defined in 14 CCR 15064.5(a)(3). Cultural resources eligible for inclusion in the NRHP are deemed “historic properties”.

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project

2 1.2.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Pursuant to CEQA, a his torical resource is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the CRHR. 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 identified as significant in a local survey conducted in accordance with the state guid elines are also considered historic resources under California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1.

CEQA details appropriate measures for the evaluation and protection of cultural resources in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. According to CEQA guid elines §15064.5 (a)(3), criteria for listing on the CRHR 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 distinctive 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.

According to CEQA guidelines §21074 (a)(1), criteria for tribal cultural resources includes the following:
(1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with c ultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
(A) included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.
(B) included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.

Protection of cultural resources within California is additionally regulated by PRC §5097.5, which prohibits destruction, defacing, or removal of any historic or prehistoric cultural features on land under the jurisdiction of State or local authorities.

1.3 PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
Archaeologist Consuelo Y. Sauls (M.A.), a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA 41591505), managed the assessment and compiled this report for the Project. Ms. Sauls also conducted the records search, literature review, requested Sacred Lands File and performed the pedestrian field survey of the Project site. 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.

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 3 Figure 1-1 Project vicinity in Tulare County, California.

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project

4 Figure 1-2 Project location on the USGS Visalia, CA 7.5-minute quadrangle.

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 5 Figure 1-3 Aerial view of the Project boundary showing survey coverage.

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 6 1.4 REPORT STRUCTURE
This report documents the results of a cultural resource assessment of the proposed Project area.

In order to assess potential project impacts to archaeological and historical resources pursuant to CCR §15064.5, 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 from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) ; (3) archival research (background research) ; (4) conducting archaeological pedestrian survey and (5) preparing California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms.

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 describes the introduction of the Project and its location, and identifies the key personnel involved in this report. Chapter 2 summarizes the Project setting, including the natural, prehistoric, historic, and ethnohistoric background for the Project area and surrounding area. Chapters 3 details the methods used for cultural records search , archival research, local Native American outreach, and archaeological pedestrian survey. Chapter 4 summarizes the results of the cultural resource investigation. Chapter 5 discusses the Project findings and offers management recommendations. Chapter 6 is a bibliography of reference s 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 the NAHC letter of the SLF results (Appendix C) and DPR 523 series record forms for recorded cultural resources (Appendix D).

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 7 2

PROJECT SETTING

2.1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
The Project site lies in the Central Valley of California, which is approximately 450 miles from north to south, and ranges in width east to west from 40 to 60 miles (Prothero 2017). The Central Valley is divided into two subunits, the Sacramento Valley in the north and the San Joaquin Valley in the south, which are each named after the primary rivers within each valley (Madden 2020).

The Project is located approximately 294 feet above sea level on the open flat plains of the Southern San Joaquin Valley. Climate within the San Joaquin valley is classified as a ‘hot Mediterranean climate’, with hot and dry summers, and cool damp winters characterized by periods of dense fog known as ‘tule fog’ (Prothero 2017).

The San Joaquin Valley is a comprised of a structural trough created approximately 65 million years ago and is filled with nearly six miles of sediment (Bull 1964). The San Joaquin Valley ranges from Stockton and the San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta in the north to Wheeler Ridge to the south, ranging nearly 60 miles wide at its widest (Zack 2017). It is split by late Pleistocene alluvial fans between the San Joaquin River hydrologic area in the north and the Tulare Lake Drainage Basin in the south (Rosenthal et al 2007). The Project site 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 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 and was the largest freshwater lake west of the Mississippi. These four rivers in the Tulare Lake Drainage Basin accounted for more than 95 percent of water discharged into Tulare Lake, with the remaining five percent sourced from small drainages originating in the Coast Ranges to the west (Adams et al. 2015).

The Project is in central western Tulare County on the valley floor of the San Joaquin Valley within the greater Kaweah River Delta alluvial fan. Specifically, the Project is located 1.8 miles north of Packwood Creek, which is a distributary of the Kaweah River (Thompson 1892). Distributaries form when debris -laden river waters meet abrupt changes in channel and slope confinement, resulting in unstable channel networks that change with time (Wagner et al. 2013). 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 foothills, 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 perennial 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.

Historically, 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 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 8 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 the 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).

The Project site is presently characterized as agricultural utilized for winter wheat cultivation, surrounded by single-family residential development to the north and east, a dairy farm and row crops to the south, and rural residences and orchards to the east. The immediate region is located at the southwest of the City of Visalia suburban footprint and is rapidly transitioning from agricultural to suburban residential use.

2.2 PREHISTORIC SETTING
Research into San Joaquin Valley prehistory began in the early 1900s with several archaeological investigations (Rosenthal et al. 2007). The Southern San Joaquin Valley is of one of the least understood areas within California due to a lack of well -grounded chronologies for large segments of the valley (Rosenthal et al. 2007). This is largely due to the valley floor being filled with thick alluvial deposits, and from human activity largely disturbing much of the valley floor due to a century and a half of agricultural use (Dillon 2002; Siefken 1999). Mound sites may have occurred as frequently as one every two or three miles along major waterways but studying such mounded occupations sites is difficult as most surface sites have been destroyed (Schenck and Dawson 1929). Much of the early to middle Holocene archaeological sites may be buried as deep as 10 meters due to millennia of erosion and alluvial deposits from the western Sierras (Moratto 1984).

Mass agricultural development has 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 shal low surface deposits and mounds throughout the valley (Rosenthal et al 2007). Some researchers have suggested that potentially as much as 90 percent of all Central California archaeological sites have been destroyed from these activities (Riddell 2002).

The cultural traits and chronologies which are summarized below are largely based upon information discussed in multiple sources, including Bennyhoff and Fredrickson (1973, 1974), Garfinkel (2015), McGuire and Garfinkel (1980), Moratto (1984), and Rosenthal et al. (2007). The most recent comprehensive approach to compiling a chronology of the Southern San Joaquin Valley prehistory is by Garfinkel in 2015, which builds off Rosenthal’s 2007 previous work. Both Garfinkel’s and Rosenthal’s chronologies are calculated in years B.C. In the interest of maintaining

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 9 cohesiveness with modern anthropological research, the dates of these chronologies have been adapted into years before present (B.P.).

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 period. 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 (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 led 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 wer e often categorized by dense flaked and ground stone assemblages, while the valley sites were instead characterized by a predominance of crescents and stemmed projectile points. Occupation within the area is represented mostly by isolated discoveries and a long the former shoreline of Tulare Lake . Archaeological f inds are typically characterized by chipped stone crescents, stemmed points, and other distinctive flakes stone artifacts (Rosenthal et al. 2007). Variations in consumption patterns emerged as well, with the valley sites more marked by consumption 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 dramatic ally reduced in size, while some vanished completely (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 B.P.), but large village structures appeared to be more common around local rivers. An overall reduction of projectile point size suggests changing bow and arrow techno logies. 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.

2.3 ETHNOGRAPHY
The Project area is in the Southern Valley Yokuts ethnographic territory of the San Joaquin Valley.

The Yokuts were generally divided into three major groups, the Northern Valley Yokuts, the Southern Valley Yokuts, and the Foothill Yokuts. The Yokuts are a sub -group of the Penutian language that covers much of coastal and central California and Oregon (Callaghan 1958). The Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 10 Yokuts language contained multiple dialects spoken throughout the region, though many of them were mutually understandable (Merriam 1904).

The Yokuts have been extensively researched and recorded by ethnographers, including Powers (1877), Kroeber (1925), Gifford and Schenck (1926, 1929), Gayton (1930, 194 5), 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 th e mid 1800s, and by the southernmost tribes often being removed and relocated by the Spanish to various Bay Area or coastal missions. The central Yokuts tribes, and especially the western Sierra Nevada foothill tribes, were the most intact at the time of ethnographic study.

The most detailed ethnographic information gathered regarding Native American group territories in Central California is located within maps prepared by Kroeber. The information presented in Kroeber’s map of Southern and Central Yokuts shows the Project area within the Telamni Yokuts territory (1925: Plate 47). The main village for this area was Waitatshuulul, which was approximately 3 miles east of the Project site along Packwood Creek (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 local tribes, with one or more linked villages and smaller settlements within a territory (Kroeber 1925).

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). Early studies by Kroeber (1925), Gifford and Schenck (1926), and Gayton (1930) concluded that social and political authority within local tribes was derived from male lineage and patriarchy. However, more re cent reexaminations (Dick -Bissonnette 1998) argue that this assumption of patriarchal organization was based on male bias by early 20th century researchers, and instead Yokuts sociopolitical authority was matriarchal in nature and centered around matrilineal use-rights and women’s work groups.

Prior to Euro -American contact, there was abundance of natural resources within the greater Tulare Lake area. Due to these resources, Yokuts maintained some of the largest populations in North America west of the continental divide (Cook 1955a).

2.4 HISTORIC SETTING

2.4.1 California History
European contact in modern -day California first occurred in 1542 with the arrival of a Spanish expedition lead by Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo into San Diego Bay ( Engstrand 1997). Expeditions along the California coast continued throughout the sixteenth century and primarily focused on

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 11 finding favorable harbors for further expansion and trade across the Pacific. However, rocky shorelines, unfavorable currents, and w ind conditions made traveling north from New Spain to the upper California coast a difficult and time -consuming journey (Eifler 2017). The topography of California, with high mountains, large deserts, and few natural harbors lead to European expansion into California only starting in the 1760s. As British and Russian expansion through fur trading encroached on California from the north, Spain established a system of presidios, pueblos, and missions along the California coast to defend its claim, starting wi th Mission San Diego de Alcalá in 1769 (Engstrand 1997).

2.4.2 Central California History
The San Joaquin Valley did not experience contact with Europeans until the late 1700s (Starr 2007). Life at the California missions was hard and brutal for Native Americans, with many dying of disease, poor conditions, and many fleeing to areas not under direct Spanish control (Jackson and Castillo 1995). The earliest exploration of the San Joaquin Valley by Europeans was likely by the Spaniards when in the fall of 1772 a group known as the Catalonian Volunteers entered the valley through Tejon Pass in sear ch of deserters from the Southern California Missions (Zack 2017). However, the group only made it as far north as Buena Vista Lake in modern day Kern County before turning around due to the extensive swamps. Additional excursions to the valley were for exploration such as those led by Lieutenant Bariel Moraga in 1806, but also to find sites for suitable mission sites and to track down Native Americans fleeing the coastal missions (Cook 1958).

Subsequent expeditions were also sent to pursue outlaws from th e coast who would often flee to the valley for safety. One of the subsequent explorations was an expedition in 1814 to 1815 with Sargent Juan Ortega and Father Juan Cabot, who left the Mission San Miguel with a company of approximately 30 Spanish soldiers and explored the San Joaquin Valley (Smith 2004). This expedition passed through the Kaweah Delta and modern -day Visalia and made a recommendation to establish a mission near modern -day Visalia. However, with European contact also came European disease. Ma laria and other new diseases were brought by Europeans, and in 1833 an epidemic of unknown origin traveled throughout the Central Valley.

Some estimates place the Native American mortality of the epidemic as high as 75 percent (Cook 1955b). Combined with the rapid expansion of Americans into California in 1848 during the Gold Rush, Native American populations within the valley never fully recovered (Eifler 2017).

Initial settlement within the valley by Europeans in the 1830s was largely either by trappers l ike 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 S an 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. Most prospectors traveled by sea to San Francisco and used rivers ranging from the Sacramento River to the San Joaquin River to access the California interior (Eifler 2017). Most areas south of the San Joaquin River were less settled simply because those rivers did not connect Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 12 to the San Francisco Bay area except in wet flood years. By 1850, California became a state and Tulare County was established in 1853.

2.4.3 Local History
The City of Visalia is one of the oldest cities within the Southern San Joaquin Valley and was founded in 1852. By the late 1850s the town of Visalia was a major station along the Butterfield Overland Mail stage route as it traveled north from Los Angeles to Stockton (Helmich 2008).

During the first few decades, Visalia was a supply center for nearby gold rushes, served as the regional population center of Tulare County, and had an agricultural economy based on livestock and some agriculture (Dyett and Bhatia 2014). During the 1850s and 1860s roughly made earthen ditches and dams diverted stream water for irrigation, with the earliest ditches in the San Joaquin Valley being constructed in Visalia between 1852 to 1853 ( Caltrans 2000). The Southern Pacific Railroad was extended from Fresno into Tulare County in the early 1870s but bypassed the City of Visalia as it was located six miles to the east of the rail line (Small 1926).

The construction of the rail line also brought an increase in agriculture and farms, which 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 caused 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 1974). 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 rights within California originally arose from the ‘first come first serve’ policy of the Gold Rush era. Diverting surface water to farms became big busin ess but was a convoluted mess of customs, traditions, and conflicting claims (Zack 2017). Fed up with the situation, small farmers gathered behind Modesto lawyer C.C. Wright, who was elected to the California legislature in 1887 on the platform of taking water rights from large estates and putting it in the power of community-controlled irrigation districts (Hundley 1992). To solve this mess, the Wright Act of 1887 was passed that allowed residents to petition a local county board of supervisors to create irrigation districts that had the power to issues bonds, and tax land within the district boundaries to pay for the creation and maintenance of canals and ditches for irrigation purposes.

One of the first three districts created under the new act was the Tulare Irrigation District (TID), which was organized on September 21, 1889 (Caltrans 2000). The TID originally covered 219,000 acres from the foothills of the Sierra Nevada to the eastern boundary of Tulare Lake but was ultimately reduced to approximately 32,000 acres (Zack 2017).

At the same time as the Wright Act , an important step forward was made in ditch -digging technology that allowed irrigation systems to be built at a faster pace. From the 1840s to 1890s, farm ditches and canals were largely constructed through the use of buckboards and slip-scoops, which involved the use of a board pulled by horses in an uprights position in order to level ground (Bulls 2010). Between 1883 and 1885, Scottish immigrant James Porteous had moved to Fresno and made significant improvements to the buckboard style scraper that allowed the new scraper

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 13 to be pulled by two horses and scrape and move soil while dumping it at a controlled depth. This new design was patented and sold as the “Fresno Scraper”, which le ad to an explosion of ditch digging efforts within the San Joaquin Valley (Zack 2017).

With the passage of a $500,000 bond approved by residents of the newly formed TID, construction of the Tulare Irrigation Canal started in 1891 (Small 1926). Starting at the St. John’s River, the main canal was sixty-four feet wide and six feet deep, with a capacity of 500 cubic feet per second, and supplied water to farms as far south as the City of Tulare.

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 14 3

METHODS

3.1 RECORDS SEARCH
On May 20, 2022, Taylored Archaeology requested a cultural resource records search from the SSJVIC of the CHRIS at California State University in Bakersfield, California. The purpose of this request was to identify any prehistoric or historical resources on or near the Project site that had been previously recorded within the Project boundary and a 0.5-mile radius of the Project area and identify and review prior cultural resource investigations completed in or near the Project boundary. SSJVIC staff researched historical USGS topographic maps, reports of previous cultural resource investigations, archaeological site and survey base maps, 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).

3.2 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH
Archival research was conducted to investigate the historical background for any potential historic structures, buildings and historical deposits that may exist and land use within the Project boundary. Historical maps, historical aerial photographs, historical US Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, Google Earth aerial photographs, Google Street View photos, books, scholarly articles, and other records were used to better understand the prehistory and history of the Project area. The results of this research are presented in Chapter 4.

3.3 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH
On May 20, 2022, Taylored Archaeology sent an email to the NAHC requesting a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search to identify places in or near the Project area that may be tribal cultural resources, including sacred sites or other resources of importance. No outreach to local Native American representatives was conducted, as they were previously contacted through Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) consultation by the City of Visalia as the CEQA lead agency for the Project. The result of the SLF search is in Chapter 4.

3.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL PEDESTRIAN SURVEY
On June 4, 2022, Archaeologist Consuelo Sauls conducted a Phase I archaeological pedestrian survey of the 69.35-acre Project site using systematic transects spaced 15 meters apart within the Project boundary . The entire Project site was accessible and surveyed to identify any prehistoric deposits and potential historical features, structures, and artifacts more than 50 years old that may be present on the ground surface. Ms. Sauls used a plan map, visible landmarks, and Gaia GPS application for navigation to locate and survey the Project area. She also photographed the survey area using an iPhone 11 Pro digital camera.

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 15 4

RESULTS

4.1 RECORDS SEARCH
The SSJVIC provided the records search results in a letter dated June 1, 2022 (Records Search File No. 22-214; Appendix B). The results of this search indicate that there are no recorded cultural resources within the Project area. However, there are two cultural resources previously recorded within a 0.5 -mile radius of the Project area (Table 4 -1). Both are historic -era and bui lt- environment resources: P-54-005058 and P-54-0055059 are both rural single-family residences.

Table 4-1 Previous Recorded Cultural Resources within 0.5-miles radius of the Project Area Resource Number Age
Association Resource Type Distance from Project Boundary P-54-005058 Historic Building; Single Family
Residence

0.48 miles south of project
boundary
P-54-005059 Historic Building; Single Family
Residence

0.48 miles south of project
boundary

According to the results, two previous cultural resource study reports were conducted within the Project area (Table 4-2). Further review revealed that TU-00041 is only a literature review of the Project region and TU-01190 is a book on conflicts between Native Americans and California gold miners during the 1850s Gold Rush in Mariposa. Neither of these reports included archaeological surveys.

Table 4-2 Previous Cultural Resource Investigation Reports within the Project Area Report
Number Author(s) Date Report Title Study
TU-00041 Self, William 1995 Class I Overview Santa Fe
Pacific Pipeline Partners, L.P.

Proposed Concord to Colton
Pipeline Project
Literature Review; No
survey of Project area
TU-01190 Mitchell, Annie R. 1957 Jim Savage and the Tulareño Indians
Book; No survey of
Project area

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 16 Five previous cultural resource studies were conducted within a 0.5 -mile radius of the Project area as shown in Table 4-3.

Table 4-3 Previous Cultural Resource Investigation Reports within 0.5-mile radius of the Project Area Report
Number Author(s) Date Report Title Study
TU-00246 Cantwell, R.J. 1979 Archaeological and Historical Survey Report for the Walnut
Avenue Extension from Watson
Ditch Near Shirk Road to the
Termination of Road 86, Visalia,
California
Archaeological and
Architectural/Historical
Field Survey
TU-00247 Cantwell, R.J. 1979 Historic Property Survey Report for the Extension of Walnut
Avenue, Road A288 and Road
86, Approximately Two and a
Half Miles of New Road, from
Watson Ditch to Southern
Terminus of Akers Road
Architectural/Historical
Filed Study

TU-01395 Schmidt, James J. 2009 Deteriorated Pole Replacement Project Twin Butte, Seville,
Tarusa, St. Johns, Wells,
Shinkle, Gopher, Caratan,
Higby, Chinowith, Oval, Lowry,
and Harrell 12 kV Distribution
Lines, Tulare County, California
Archaeological Field
Survey
TU-01546 Orfila, Rebecca S. 2011 Archaeological Survey of Project Area for the Southern
California Edison Company:

Infrastructure Improvement
and Maintenance (IIM) Project
- Diamante 12kV Project
(IO#315323, TD 397679; RSOC
Consultant Work Authorization
CWA 104)
Archaeological Field
Survey
TU-01659 Haley, Kathryn 2009 Historic Property Survey Report for Avenue 280 Road Widening
Project, Tulare County,
California
Architectural/Historical
Filed Survey

In addition to the SSJVIC research, Taylored Archaeology further reviewed the cultural resources

0.5-miles from the Project boundary. Using Google Earth aerial maps, P -54-005058 was determined to have been demolished circa 2021 (Google Earth 2022).

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 17 4.2 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH
Historic map coverage of the Project site began in 1885. A review of an 1885 irrigation map of Fresno to Porterville shows all of Section 3, including the Project site, as owned by a “Coughran” (Figure 4-1), with no canals, ditches, or natural waterways depicted on, or adjacent to, the Project site (Hammond 1885).

Figure 4-1 1885 Irrigation Map, Project site in Section 3 (Hammond 1885) An 1892 survey map of Tulare County similarly shows all of Section 3, including the Project site, as owned by a “W. Coughran” (Figure 4-2) with no artificial or natural waterways depicted on, or adjacent to, the Project site (Thompson 1892). No structures are depicted within Se ction 3 but the Evans Ditch is depicted as running along the southern boundary of Section 3, approximately

0.5 miles south of the Project site.

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 18 Figure 4-2 1892 Atlas, Project site in Section 3 (Thompson 1892) Available topographic map coverage of the Project site begins in 192 7. The USGS topographic map of the Project site in 1927 depicts an unnamed irrigation ditch, likely the South Fork Persian Ditch, crossing the Project site from the northeast to southwest, and an unnamed natural watercourse crossing the northern portion of the Project site from east to west (Figure 4-3; USGS 1927).

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 19 Figure 4-3 1927 topographic map, Project site in red (USGS 1927) The next available historical map of the Project site is the USGS topographic map from 1950 (USGS 1950). This map depicts the unnamed ditch, likely the South Fork Persian Ditch, as modified from the original 1927 map. By 1950, the ditch had been reoriented to cross the project site from directly north to south, and the natural watercourse in the 1927 map is now depicted at completely gone (Figure 4 -4). Additionally, two structures are d epicted at the northwestern portion of the Project site.

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 20 Figure 4-4 1950 topographic map, Project site in red (USGS 1950) Finally, the 1969 topographic map depicts the Project site similar to the 1950 topographic map, with no discernable change (USGS 1969).

A review of available Project site specific environmental reports revealed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) for the Project site conducted by Salem Engineering Group in 2020 (Lodge 2020). The 2020 Phase I ESA conducted a n intensive review of available historical a erial imagery of the Project site to determine past development history of the site. Below is a reproduction of the results of the review by Salem Engineering (Lodge 2020):
• 1937 Aerial Photograph
The northwest portion of the subject property appears to be developed with a single-family dwelling and several out buildings. A dirt road traverses the southeast co rner of the subject property. Undeveloped land adjoins the subject property to the north, south, east, and west. A dirt road (South Shirk Road) adjoins the subject property to the west, beyond which is undeveloped land.

• 1952 Aerial Photograph
Several of the str uctures previously observed on the northwest corner of the subject property appear to have been demolished. The subject property and all adjoining properties appear to be utilized for agricultural purposes. A small set of

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 21 rural residences or barn structures are observed adjoining the subject property on the agricultural land to the south.

• 1969 Aerial Photograph
The northwest corner of the subject property is occupied by what appears to be a single-family dwelling and associated agricultural -use out buildings. The remainder of the subject property appears to be utilized for agricultural purposes as orchard. An east -west trending dirt road tr averses the middle of the subject property. Direct access roads adjoining the subject property to the north and south. The conditions on the adjoining properties are similar to the 1952 aerial photograph.

• 1972 Aerial Photograph
The conditions on the subject property and adjoining properties are similar to the 1969 aerial photograph with the exception of the adjoining property to the south, which appears to have long rectangular -shaped structures which appear to be cattle shade structures.

• 1977 Aerial Photograph
The conditions on the subject property and adjoining properties are similar to the 1972 aerial photograph.

• 1984 Aerial Photograph
The conditions of the subject property and adjoining properties are similar to the 1977 aerial photograph, with the exception that an irrigation water retention basin is now visible on the adjoining property to the northwest.

• 1994 Aerial Photograph
The structures on the northwest corner on the subject property appear to have been demolished. The remainder of the subject property appears to be utilized for agricultural purposes as an orchard. The adjoining properties to the east and northeast have been developed with residential tracts. The conditions on the adjoining properties to t he north, south, and west are similar to the 1984 aerial photograph.

• 2006 Aerial Photograph
The conditions on the subject property and adjoining properties to the south and west ar e similar to the 1994 aerial photograph. An increase in residential development is observed on the properties to the north, northeast, and east. The irrigation water retention basin previously observed to the west of the subject property no longer appears to be in use.

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 22 Further review of historic aerial imagery available in the 2020 Phase I ESA and at the Fresno State Map and Aerial Locator Tool (MALT) shows the northeast to southwest alignment of the ditch on the Project site appears to have been modified to a north to south alignment between 1937 and 1946 (Lodge 2020; USAAA 1946). Finally, the north to south alignment of the ditch was changed to its present -day alignment with a 90 degree turn to the west between 2003 and 2004 to accommodate the development of a single -family residential neighborhood adjacent to the northeast of the Project site (Google Earth 2022).

A review of the City of Visalia Planning Information Map confirmed the name of the ditch on the Project site as the South Fork Persian Ditch (Visalia 2022). On July 8, 2022, Taylored Archaeology placed a call to the Persian Ditch C ompany who confirmed that the y manage the South Fork Persian Ditch. No information regarding the date of the ditch construction or the history of the ditch was provided because the Persian Ditch Company stated they are a privately held company which only shares information with company stockholders.

4.3 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH
The NAHC responded on July 6, 2022, via letter regarding Taylored Archaeology’s request . The letter stated a search of the SLF was negative . The NAHC supplied a list of Native American representatives to contact for information or knowledge of cultural resources in the Project area (Appendix C).

Prior to the commencement of this cultural resources assessment by Taylored Archeology for the Project, the City of Visalia conducted AB 52 consultation with local Native American tribes. Paige Berggren, a Cultural Specialist Monitor for the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe responded on behalf of the Tri be requesting an archaeological firm be hired to conduct a pre -construction survey, a records search with NAHC and CHRIS center, and monitoring of any ground disturbing activities. Additionally, the Tachi Yokut Tribe request to be put in contact with the archaeological firm hired so they can maintain updates about the Project (Appendix C).

4.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL PEDESTRIAN SURVEY RESULTS
The landscape on the Project site consisted of a harvest wheat field (Figure 4-5). As discussed in Section 4.2 of this report, t he natural topography of the area has been altered by historical and modern agricultural practices and much of the land on the Project site had been graded, plowed, planted and/or harvested, which has caused additional disturbance to the soil. The soil was gray to light brown sandy silt. During the survey, ground visibility was good (80 percent ) due to vegetation in the wheat field and other short grasses . H owever, the ground visibility in the northwestern portion of the Project site was poor (0 to 5 percent) due to annual grasses and the remnants of a concrete pad, former barn, and wood piles (Figure 4 -6). Rodent burrows and related soil piles were closely examined for soil type and lithic scatters.

An irrigation water pump was observed in the eastern portion of the Project site adjacent to the South Fork Persian Ditch (Figure 4-7). The South Fork Persian Ditch is an unlined earthen irrigation ditch that is owned and operated by the Persian Ditch Company (Figure 4 -8). The ditch was

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 23 observed transecting the southeast portion of the Project site. Two potential historic resources were assessed during the survey and recorded. No prehistoric or tribal resources were discovered during the field survey.

Figure 4-5 Northern portion of the Project site, facing east.

Figure 4-6 Structure pad on the Project site, facing southeast.

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 24 Figure 4-7 Water pump on the Project site, facing south.

Figure 4-8 South Fork Persian Ditch on the Project site, facing east.

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 25 5

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
The Phase I cultural resource assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project was completed. The purpose of this assessment is to identify potential cultural resources within the 69.35-acre Project boundary in Tulare County, California. The Project proposes to construct a single -family residential dev elopment comprised of approximately 1 36 residential lots with park strip landscaping, streets, streetlights and sidewalks and a pond. The Project site will also be annexed into the City of Visalia.

The SSJVIC r eported that two previous cultural resource investigations have been conducted within the Project area and no cultural resources were recorded within the Project area. Taylored Archaeology reviewed the two cultural resource investigations (TU-00041 and TU-01190) - both are literature reviews and are not surveys of the Project area. The SSJVIC identified five previous investigations and two recorded historical resources within a 0.5 -mile radius of the Project boundary: 3431 S. Shirk Street, a rural residential home (P-54-005058) and 6440 W. Cadwell Avenue, a rural residential home (P-54-005059).

The NAHC stated a search of its Sacred Lands File was negative . Local tribes were previously contacted by the City of Visalia under AB 52. The pedestrian survey of the Project site did not identify any prehistoric resources on the ground surface. However, a segment of the South Fork Persian Ditch was identified and recorded on DPR forms but was not formally evaluate d for significance and elig ibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or California Register of Historical Resources. According to the Project description, the ditch will remain open in its present condition with only a single bridge crossing the ditch within the Project boundary.

Because the Project proposes no substantial change to the ditch, there is no expected adverse change to this historical resource.

In the event that previously unidentified archaeological remains are encountered 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. In the eve nt of accidental discovery of unidentified archaeological remains during development or ground - moving activities in the Project area, all work shall be halted in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot radius) until a qualified archaeologist can identify the discovery and assess its significance.

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 26 6

REFERENCES
Adams, Kenneth D., Robert M. Negrini, Edward R. Cook, and Seshadri Rajagopal. 2015 Annually resolved late Holocene paleohydrology of the southern Sierra Nevada and Tulare Lake, California. Water Resources Research 51:9708-9724.

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.

Bulls, Diana.
2010 The Fresno Scraper: A Mechanical Engineering Marvel. Kings River Life Magazine .

August 14.

Callaghan, Catherine A.
1958 California Penutian: H istory and Bibliography. International Journal of American Linguistics. 24(3):189-194.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
2000 Water Conveyance Systems in California: Historic Context Development and Evaluation Procedures. Sacramento, California.

Clough, Charles W. and William B. Secrest, Jr.
1984 Fresno County The Pioneer Years: From the Beginnings to 1900. Panorama West Publishing, Fresno, California.

Cook, Sherburne F.
1955a The Aboriginal Population of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Anthropological Records 16:31–80. University of California, Berkeley.

1955b The Epidemic of 1830 -1833 In California and Oregon. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 43(3):303 -326. University of California, Berkeley.

1958 The Project Gutenberg eBook, Colonial Expeditions to the Interior of California Central Valley, 1800-1820
1962 Expeditions to the Interior of California : Central Valley, 1820 -1840. Anthropological Records 20(5):151-212.

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 27 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.

Dick-Bissonnette, Linda E.
1998 Gender and Authority among the Yokoch, Mono, and Miwok of Central California.

Journal of Anthropological Research 54(1):49-72.

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.

Eifler, Mark A.
2017 The California Gold Rush: The Stampede that Changed the World. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group Press, Las Vegas.

Engstrand, Iris H.W.
1997 Seekers of the "Northern Mystery": European Exploration of California and the Pacific.

California History, 76(2/3):78–110.

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

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 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 28 American Archaeology and Ethnology 24(8):361–420.

1945 Yokuts and Western Mono Social Organization. American Anthropologist 47(3):409–426.

Gifford, E.W., and 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).

Hammond, William.
1885 Composite, Fresno to Porterville, Detail Irrigation Map . California State Engineering Department.
https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~207677~3003421:

Accessed July 10, 2022.

Harrington, Mark R.
1957 A Pinto Site at Little Lake, California. No. 17. Southwest Museum.

Helmich, Mary A.
2008 Stage Road Hazards . California State Parks, Interpretation & Education Division. https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=25445. Accessed March 20, 2021.

Hundley, Norris Jr.
1992 The Great Thirst: Californians and Water, 1770s – 1900s. University of California Press, Berkley, California.

Jackson, Robert H. and Edward Castillo
1995 Indians, Franciscans, and Spanish Colonization: The Impacts of the Mission System on California Indians. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of California Indians. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78, Washington, D.C. Reprinted 2018, Dover Publications, New York, New York.

Latta, Frank F.
1977 Handbook of Yokuts Indians. Reprinted 2014, Bear State Books, Santa Cruz, California.

Lodge, Shannon.
2020 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Vacant Land, NWC West Whitendale Ave and South Roben Street, Visalia, California, Salem Project No. 2 -420-0864. Salem Engineering Group, Inc., Bakersfield, California.

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 29 Ludeke, John.
1980 The No Fence Law of 1874: Vic tor for San Joaquin Valley Farmers. California History 2(59):98-115. University of California Press, Berkley, California.

Madden, Derek.
2020 The Naturalist’s Illustrated Guide to the Sierra Foothills and Central Valley . Heyday Publishing, Berkley, California.

McGuire, Kelly R. and Alan P. Garfinkel.
1980 Archaeological Investigations in the Southern Sierra Nevada: The Bear Mountain Segment of the Pacific Crest Trail. Cultural Resources Publications, Archaeology , unnumbered: xii – 304.

Merriam, Hart C.
1904 Distribution of Indian Tribes in the Southern Sie rra and Adjacent Parts of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Science 19(494):912-917.

Mitchell, Annie R.
1974 A Modern History of Tulare County. Limited Edition of Visalia, Incorporated. Visalia, California.

Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York, NY.

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.

Prothero, Donald R.
2017 California’s Amazing Geology. Taylor and Francis Group.

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, California.

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 30 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. Kl ar.

AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Schenck, W.E., and E.J. Dawson
1929 Archaeology of the Northern San Joaquin Valley. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 25:289-413. University of California, Bakersfield, 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.

Small, Kathleen Edwards.
1926 Early History of Tulare County California. 2001 reprint edition, Bear State Books, Exeter, California.

Smith, Wallace.
2004 Garden of the Sun: A History of the San Joaquin Valley: 1772-1939. 2nd ed., revised by William B. Secrest, Jr. Linden Publishing, Fresno, California.

Starr, Kevin.
2007 California: A History. Random House Publishing Group, New York, New York.

Thompson, Thos. H.
1892 Township 19 South, Range 24 East. Official historical atlas map of Tulare County compiled, drawn and published from personal examinations and surveys by Thos. H.

Thompson, Tulare, California. David Rumsey Map Collection. https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~24940~970092:T- 19S-R-24E, accessed July 10, 2022.

U.S. Agricultural Adjustment Administration (USAAA)
1946 Fresno County, California Aerial Survey No. 194 6 F -K 14-37, http://digitized.library.fresnostate.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/aerial/id/16194, accessed through Map and Aerial Locator Tool (MALT), Henry Madden Library, California State University, Fresno, accessed July 9, 2022.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
1927 Visalia, California, Quadrangle Map . 7.5 -minute series. U.S. Geological Surv ey, Denver, Colorado.
1950 Visalia, California, Quadrangle Map . 7.5 -minute series. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado.

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 31 1969 Visalia, California, Quadrangle Map, 1949, photo revised 1969. 7.5-minute series. U.S.

Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado.

Varner, Dudley M. and David R. Stuart.
1975 Survey of Archaeological and Historical Resources in the Central Yokohl Valley, Tulare County, California. Sacramento: Report to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

Visalia, City of.
2022 City of Visalia Planning Information Map.
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/bff05c1d6b7b4c0fa23de98ca2d46cd6/, Visalia, California, accessed July 8, 2022.

Wagner, David L., Jerome V. De Graff, and Jeremy T. Lancaster. 2013 Debris flows in the southern and eastern Sierra Nevada region, California. In Geologic Excursions from Fresno, California, and the Central Valley: A Tour of California’s Iconic Geology. Keith Daniel Putrika, pp. 99-128. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Wallace, William J.
1978 Southern Valley Yokuts. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, California. Ed.

Robert F. Heizer, pp. 448 -461. The Geological Society of American, Inc., Boulder, Colorado

Zack, Richard.
2017 Quest for Water Tulare Irrigation District its History, People, and Progression.

PartnerPress.org, Carlsbad, California.

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 32 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

–

202
2 Principal Investigator, Taylored Archaeology, Fresno,

California
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

archaeologist.

She

has

conducted

pedestrian

surveys,
supervised

Extended

Phase

survey,

authored

technical

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

Assembly

Bill

52 tribal

comments.

Ms.

Sauls

also

has

extensive

background

supervising

laboratory

processing,

cataloging,

and

conservation

prehistoric

and

historical

archaeological

collections.

addition,

she

worked

with

the

Rock

Art

Heritage

Group

the

management,

preservation,

and

presentation

rock

art

museums

throughout

England,

including

thorough

analysis

the

British

Museum’s

rock

art

collections.

Durham

University

Archaeology

Museum,

Ms.

Sauls

processed

the
excavated skeletal remains of 30 individuals from the seventeenth century Areas of Expertise


Prehistoric archaeology


Rock art recordation and analysis


Laboratory management
Years of Experience


12 Education


M.A., Archaeology, University

of Durham, 2014


B.A., Anthropology, California

State University,

Fresno, 2009
Registrations/Certifications


Registered Professional

Archaeologist 41591505
Professional Affiliations


Coalition for Diversity

California Archaeology


Society for American Archaeology


Society for California Archaeology


Society of Black Archaeologists

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 33 APPENDIX B
Records Search Results

6/1/2022

Consuelo Sauls
Taylored Archaeology
6083 N. Figarden Drive, Suite 616
Fresno, CA 93722

Re: Barr-Wood Project
Records Search File No.: 22-214

The Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center received your record search request for the project area referenced above, located on the Visalia USGS 7.5’ quad. The following reflects the results of the records search for the project area and the 0.5 mile radius:

As indicated on the data request form, the locations of resources and reports are provided in the following format: ☒ custom GIS maps ☐ GIS data

Resources within project area: None
Resources within 0.5 mile radius: P-54-005058, 005059
Reports within project area: TU-00041, 01190
Reports within 0.5 mile radius: TU-00246, 00247, 01395, 01546, 01659 Note:

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: Only the Title Page, Table of Contents, & Executive Summary of TU-00102 was included.

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 Note: P-15-007046 is not listed in the BERD. The 2013 HPD page was included for this resource.

Caltrans Bridge Survey: Not available at SSJVIC; please see https://dot.ca.gov/programs/environmental-analysis/cultural-studies/california-historical-bridges-tunnels 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 https://www.slc.ca.gov/shipwrecks/

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, State 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 or paid for historical resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the CHRIS Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts.

Should you require any additional information for the above referenced project, reference the record search number listed above when making inquiries. I nvoices for Information Center services will be sent under separate cover from the California State University, Bakersfield Accounting Office.

Thank you for using the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS).

Sincerely,

Celeste M. Thomson
Coordinator

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Barr and Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project 34 APPENDIX C
Native American Outreach

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

Page 1 of 1 ends

July 6, 2022

Consuelo Sauls
Taylored Archeology

Via Email to: [email protected]

Re: Barr-Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project, Tulare County

Dear Mr. Sauls:

A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.

Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].

Sincerely,

Cameron Vela
Cultural Resources Analyst

Attachment

CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño

VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk

COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache

COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan

COMMISSIONER
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki

COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Christina Snider
Pomo

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov

CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño

VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk

SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache

COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan

COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki

COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.

Hitchcock
Miwok/Nisenan

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov

Big Sandy Rancheria of
Western Mono Indians
Elizabeth Kipp, Chairperson
P.O. Box
337

Auberry, CA,
93602
Phone: (
559
)
374
-
0066
Fax: (
559
)
374-0055
[email protected]
Western Mono
Dunlap Band of Mono Indians
Benjamin Charley, Chairman
P. O. Box
14 Dunlap, CA,
93621
Phone: (
559
)
338
-
2545
[email protected]
Mono
Dunlap Band of Mono Indians
Dirk Charley, Tribal Secretary
5509
E. Mckenzie Avenue
Fresno, CA,
93727
Phone: (
559
)
554
-
5433
dcharley
2016
@gmail.com
Mono
Kern Valley Indian Community
Robert Robinson, Chairperson
P.O. Box
1010

Lake Isabella, CA,
93240
Phone: (
760
)
378
-
2915
[email protected]
Kawaiisu
Tubatulabal
Koso
Kern Valley Indian Community
Julie Turner, Secretary
P.O. Box
1010

Lake Isabella, CA,
93240
Phone: (
661
)
340
-
0032
Kawaiisu
Tubatulabal
Koso
Kern Valley Indian Community
Brandy Kendricks,
30741
Foxridge Court
Tehachapi, CA,
93561
Phone: (
661
)
821
-
1733
[email protected]
Kawaiisu
Tubatulabal
Koso
North Fork Mono Tribe
Ron Goode, Chairperson
13396
Tollhouse Road
Clovis, CA,
93619
Phone: (
559
)
299
-
3729
rwgoode
911
@hotmail.com
Mono
Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi
Yokut Tribe
Leo Sisco, Chairperson
P.O. Box
8 Lemoore, CA,
93245
Phone: (
559
)
924
-
1278
Fax: (
559
)
924-3583
Southern Valley
Yokut
Tubatulabals of Kern Valley
Robert Gomez, Chairperson
P.O. Box
226

Lake Isabella, CA,
93240
Phone: (
760
)
379
-
4590
Fax: (
760
)
379-4592
Tubatulabal
Tule River Indian Tribe
Kerri Vera, Environmental
Department
P. O. Box
589

Porterville, CA,
93258
Phone: (
559
)
783
-
8892
Fax: (
559
)
783-8932
[email protected]
Yokut
Tule River Indian Tribe
Joey Garfield, Tribal Archaeologist
P. O. Box
589

Porterville, CA,
93258
Phone: (
559
)
783
-
8892
Fax: (
559
)
783-8932
joey.garfield@tulerivertribe-
nsn.gov
Yokut
Tule River Indian Tribe
Neil Peyron, Chairperson
P.O. Box
589

Porterville, CA,
93258
Phone: (
559
)
781
-
4271
Fax: (
559
)
781-4610
[email protected]
Yokut
Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom
Valley Band
Kenneth Woodrow, Chairperson
1179
Rock Haven Ct.

Salinas, CA,
93906
Phone: (
831
)
443
-
9702
kwood
8934
@aol.com
Foothill Yokut
Mono
1 of 1
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5
of
the Health and Safety Code, Section
5097.94
of the Public Resource Section
5097.98
of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Barr-Wood Tentative Subdivision Map Project, Tulare County.

PROJ-2022-
003875
07/06/2022 04:21 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Tulare County
7/6/2022

Appendix D
Energy Calculations
Construction Equipment Energy Use
Phase Name Off Road Equipment Type Off Road Equipment Unit Amount1
Usage Hours
Per Day1
Horse Power
(lbs/sec)1 Load Factor1
Total
Operational
Hours
BSFC2 Fuel Used
(gallons)3 MBTU4
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 0 8 247 0.4 0 0.367 0.00 0 Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 0 8 81 0.73 0 0.408 0.00 0 Demolition Excavators 0 8 158 0.38 0 0.408 0.00 0
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 247 0.4 960 0.367 4896.50 680.6135 Site Preparation Graders 0 8 187 0.41 0 0.367 0.00 0
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 97 0.37 1280 0.408 2636.54 366.4797 7533.04 Grading Excavators 2 8 158 0.38 1760 0.367 5455.20 758.2732 Grading Graders 1 8 187 0.41 880 0.367 3483.10 484.1506 33057.81 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 247 0.4 880 0.367 4488.46 623.8957 Grading Scrapers 2 8 367 0.48 1760 0.367 16005.80 2224.807 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 97 0.37 1760 0.408 3625.25 503.9095 Building Construction Cranes 1 7 231 0.29 7770 0.367 26871.29 3735.11 144328.96 Building Construction Forklifts 3 8 89 0.2 26640 0.408 27214.85 3782.864 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8 84 0.74 8880 0.408 31679.30 4403.423 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 97 0.37 23310 0.408 48013.94 6673.938 Building Construction Welders 1 8 46 0.45 8880 0.408 10549.57 1466.391 Paving Pavers 2 8 130 0.42 1200 0.367 3382.45 470.1606 8419.96 Paving Paving Equipment 2 8 132 0.36 1200 0.367 2943.85 409.1947 Paving Rollers 2 8 80 0.38 1200 0.408 2093.66 291.019
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 0 8 9 0.56 0 0.408 0.00 0 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 8 97 0.37 0 0.408 0.00 0 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6 78 0.48 450 0.408 966.94 134.4048 Total 194306.72 27008.63
Construction Phases
PhaseNumber Phase Name Phase Type
Phase Start
Date Phase End Date
Num Days
Week
Total Number
of Days
1 Demolition Demolition 5
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/1/2023 2/24/2023 5 40 3 Grading Grading 2/25/2023 7/28/2023 5 110
4 Building Construction Building Construction 7/29/2023 10/29/2027 5 1110 5 Paving Paving 10/30/2027 2/11/2028 5 75
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/12/2028 5/26/2028 5 75 Notes

1. CalEEMod Default Values Used

3. Fuel Used = Load Factor x Horsepower x Total Operational Hours x BSFC / Unit Conversion

4. MBTU calculated for comparison purposes. Assumed 1 gallon of diesel = 0.139 MBTU

2. BSFC - Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (pounds per horsepower-hour) – If less than 100 Horsepower = 0.408, if greater than 100 Horsepower = 0.367 Mobile Energy Use (Construction)
Worker Trips
Daily Worker
Trips1
Worker Trip
Length1 VMT/Day MPG Factor
(EMFAC2017)
Gallons of
Gas/Day # of Days Total Gallons of
Gas MBTU Total Gallons in
Construction
Demolition 0 10.8 0 29.23 0.0 0 0.0 0 0
Site Preparation 18 10.8 194.4 29.23 6.7 40 266.0 30.8832 7799 Grading 20 10.8 216 29.23 7.4 110 812.9 94.36532 33871
Building Construction 49 10.8 529.2 29.23 18.1 1110 20096.2 2332.968 164425 Paving 15 10.8 162 29.23 5.5 75 415.7 48.25499 8836
Architectural Coating 10 10.8 108 29.23 3.7 75 277.1 32.17 1244 Total N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1410 21867.9 2538.642 216175
Vendor Trips
Daily Vendor
Trips
Vendor Trip
Length VMT/Day MPG Factor Gallons of
Diesel/Day # of Days Total Gallons of
Diesel MBTU
Building Construction 15 7.3 109.5 8.43 13.0 1110 14418.14947 2004.123 Hauling Trips
Daily Hauling
Trips
Hauling Trip
Length VMT/Day MPG Factor Gallons of
Gas/Day # of Days Total Gallons of
Diesel MBTU
Demolition 0 7.3 0 8.43 0.0 0 0 0
Fleet Characteristics 14418.14947
Vehicle Class Fleet Mix
2024 MPG
Factor
(EMFAC2017)
Average MPG
Factor
LDA 33% 33.24
LDT1 33% 28.07
LDT2 33% 26.38
MHD 50% 9.74
HHD 50% 7.12
Notes

1. CalEEMod Default values used

2. MBTU calculated for comparison purposes. Assumed 1 gallon of gasoline = 0.11609 MBTU Assumed Vehicle Fleet for
Workers

29.23 Assumed Vehicle Fleet for
Vendor Trips 8.43
Mobile Energy Use (Operations)
Total Annual
VMT from
Project
(CalEEMod) 2,771,614
Fleet Mix & Fuel Calculations
Gas Diesel Gas Diesel Gas Diesel Gas Diesel
LDA 52.16% 1445673.9 100% 0% 1443022.73 2651.13 28.92 42.70 49890.6 62.1 5800.4 LDT1 21.00% 582038.9 100% 0% 581823.73 215.21 23.79 24.66 24461.6 8.7 2841.0 LDT2 17.00% 471174.4 100% 0% 469654.18 1520.20 23.27 32.65 20186.9 46.6 2350.0 MDV 6.00% 166296.8 98% 2% 163666.19 2630.65 18.87 23.72 8674.5 110.9 1022.4 LHD1 0.08% 2217.3 50% 50% 1106.38 1110.91 9.67 15.77 114.4 70.4 23.1 LHD2 0.09% 2494.5 27% 73% 675.23 1819.22 8.58 13.15 78.7 138.4 28.4 MHD 0.76% 21064.3 18% 82% 3760.23 17304.03 4.80 8.78 783.4 1970.6 364.9 HHD 2.00% 55432.3 0% 100% 12.18 55420.10 3.37 6.22 3.6 8914.8 1239.6 OBUS 0.00% 0.0 63% 37% 0.00 0.00 4.79 6.96 0.0 0.0 0.0
UBUS 0.43% 11917.9 64% 36% 7682.51 4235.43 8.41 12.12 913.6 349.3 154.6 MCY 0.25% 6929.0 100% 0% 6929.04 0.00 40.47 NA 171.2 0.0 19.9 SBUS 0.01% 277.2 38% 62% 105.21 171.95 9.83 8.13 10.7 21.2 4.2 MH 0.22% 6097.6 65% 35% 3982.07 2115.48 4.41 9.39 902.2 225.2 136.0 Total 100.00% 2771614.0 2682419.69 89194.31 14.55 106191 11918 13984.4 Fleet Characteristics 23.5
Source: EMFAC 2021 (v1.0.1) Emissions Inventory
Region Type: County
Region: Tulare County
Calendar Year: 2028
Season: Annual
Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories
Units: miles/year for VMT, trips/year for Trips, tons/year for Emissions, 1000 gallons/year for Fuel Consumption

GASOLINE
Region
Calendar
Year
Vehicle
Category Model Year Speed Fuel Population VMT (Annual) Trips (Annual) Fuel
Consumption
(1000 gal/year)
Annual Fuel
Consumption
(gallons) MPG
Tulare County 2025 HHDT Aggregated Aggregated GAS 2 164 36 0.0486 49 3.37 Tulare County 2025 LDA Aggregated Aggregated GAS 62800 2580000 292000 89.2 89200 28.92 Tulare County 2025 LDT1 Aggregated Aggregated GAS 5590 186000 24100 7.82 7820 23.79 Tulare County 2025 LDT2 Aggregated Aggregated GAS 29000 1140000 135000 49 49000 23.27 Tulare County 2025 LHDT1 Aggregated Aggregated GAS 2670 97700 39800 10.1 10100 9.67 Tulare County 2025 LHDT2 Aggregated Aggregated GAS 336 12100 5010 1.41 1410 8.58 Tulare County 2025 MCY Aggregated Aggregated GAS 3370 19100 6750 0.472 472 40.47 Tulare County 2025 MDV Aggregated Aggregated GAS 27500 983000 125000 52.1 52100 18.87 Tulare County 2025 MH Aggregated Aggregated GAS 356 3200 36 0.725 725 4.41 Tulare County 2025 MHDT Aggregated Aggregated GAS 176 10800 3520 2.25 2250 4.80 Tulare County 2025 OBUS Aggregated Aggregated GAS 73 3870 1460 0.808 808 4.79 Tulare County 2025 SBUS Aggregated Aggregated GAS 28 1750 110 0.178 178 9.83 Tulare County 2025 UBUS Aggregated Aggregated GAS 12 497 47 0.0591 59 8.41 DIESEL
Region Calendar Year
Vehicle
Category Model Year Speed Fuel Population VMT Trips
Fuel
Consumption
(1000 gal/year)
Annual Fuel
Consumption
(gallons) MPG
Tulare County 2025 HHDT Aggregated Aggregated DSL 4890 746000 88700 120 120000 6.22 Tulare County 2025 LDA Aggregated Aggregated DSL 159 4740 658 0.111 111 42.70 Tulare County 2025 LDT1 Aggregated Aggregated DSL 4 69 12 0.00279 3 24.66 Tulare County 2025 LDT2 Aggregated Aggregated DSL 88 3690 422 0.113 113 32.65 Tulare County 2025 LHDT1 Aggregated Aggregated DSL 2760 98100 34700 6.22 6220 15.77 Tulare County 2025 LHDT2 Aggregated Aggregated DSL 871 32600 11000 2.48 2480 13.15 Tulare County 2025 MDV Aggregated Aggregated DSL 424 15800 1950 0.666 666 23.72 Tulare County 2025 MH Aggregated Aggregated DSL 196 1700 20 0.181 181 9.39 Tulare County 2025 MHDT Aggregated Aggregated DSL 1060 49700 12400 5.66 5660 8.78 Tulare County 2025 OBUS Aggregated Aggregated DSL 32 2240 390 0.322 322 6.96 Tulare County 2025 SBUS Aggregated Aggregated DSL 135 2860 1950 0.352 352 8.13 Tulare County 2025 UBUS Aggregated Aggregated DSL 3 274 14 0.0226 23 12.12 Notes

1. Used project-specific vehicle fleet mix for residential

2. Proportion of diesel vs. gasoline vehicles calculated based on total annual VMT for each vehicle class Vehicle Class Proportion
of Fleet Mix1
Annual VMT
by Vehicle
Class
MBTU/Year3
Annual Fuel Use from Project
(gallons)
Fuel Efficiency (MPG) by
Vehicle Class and Fuel Type
(EMFAC2021)
Annual VMT by Vehicle Class
and Fuel Type
Proportion of vehicle class
using gas or diesel
(EMFAC2021)2

3. MBTU Calculated for comparison purposes. Assumed 1 gallon of gasoline = 0.116090 MBTU and 1 gallong of diesel = 0.139 MBTU Appendix E
VMT Analysis Results
324 S. Santa Fe, Suite A
Visalia, California 93292
www.4-creeks.com

August 31, 2022

Ms. Leslie Blair, PE
City of Visalia
315 E. Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291

Subject: Response to City Comments to Trip Generation Estimate and Phasing Analysis for Barr & Wood Subdivision, dated May 10, 2022

Dear Ms. Blair,

The letter is in response to City comments to the Trip Generation Estimate and Phasing Analysis for Barr & Wood Subdivision, dated May 10, 2022. The City commented:

The information provided shall address intersection impacts (ex. Roeben at Walnut), circulation impacts, and justify the proposed phasing of off-site improvements. 4Creeks provided trip generation information and construction phasing. They are proposing no t to connect Whitendale to Shirk for Phase I. They plan for the development to obtain access off of Roeben; hence, no need to build out Whitendale to connect to Shirk for Phase I. The City had requested that intersection impacts (ex. Roeben and Walnut), ci rculation impacts, etc. created from this phased approach be addressed. The City wants to know what the traffic impacts will be on the surrounding network caused by not connecting Whitendale between Shirk and Roeben.

This traffic information was not included, and needs to be provided.

Per Table 1 below and as provided in the original May 10, 2022 letter, the project will generate approximately 1,339 daily trips, including 99 AM peak hour trips (26 inbound, 73 outbound) and 133 PM peak hour trips (84 inbound, 49 outbound). The City of Visalia’s Procedures for Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), March 2021, indicates residential developments generating less than 200 peak hour trips do not require a TIA. Therefore, as per the City’s TIA guidelines, it is anticipated the project will not require a TIA.

TABLE 1: PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Single-Family
Detached Housing
(ITE Code 210) -
Project Phase
Total
Units
Daily* AM Peak Hour* PM Peak Hour*
Trips
%
In:Out In Out Total
%
In:Out In Out Total
Phase 1 43 464 26:74 9 26 35 63:37 28 17 45
Phase 2 (add 46 units) 89 906 26:74 17 50 67 63:37 56 33 89 Phase 3 (add 47 units) 136 1,339 26:74 26 73 99 63:37 84 49 133 Total Project 136 1,339 26:74 26 73 99 63:37 84 49 133
*Regression equations used based on procedure in Trip Generation Handbook , 3rd Edition, September 2017

Whitendale Avenue does not currently exist between Shirk Road and Roeben Street. Phase 1 of the project is expected to generate approximately 464 daily trips, including 35 AM peak hour trips (9 inbound, 26 outbound) and 45 PM peak hour trips (28 inbound, 17 outbound). The number of trips generated

Ms. Leslie Blair, PE Page 2 of 2
August 31, 2022

324 S. Santa Fe, Suite A
Visalia, California 93292
www.4-creeks.com
during both the AM and PM peak hours for Phase 1 are significantly less than the total project and less than the City’s TIA guidelines that would require additional analysis.

Given that Whitendale Avenue does not currently exist, that few trips will be generated during Phase 1, and that the City’s TIA guidelines do not require analysis for residential projects generating less than 200 peak hour trips, it is not anticipated that there will be any si gnificant impact to adjacent intersections during Phase 1 or that additional analysis should be required.

Should you have any questions or if 4Creeks can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call me or David Duda at (559) 802-3052.

Sincerely,

Lisa M. Wallis-Dutra, PE, TE, PTOE, RSP
1 Sr. Traffic Engineer

Cc: David Duda, AICP

324 S. Santa Fe, Suite A
Visalia, California 93292
www.4-creeks.com

May 10, 2022

Ms. Leslie Blair, PE
City of Visalia
315 E. Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291

Subject: Trip Generation Estimate and Phasing Analysis for Barr & Wood Subdivision

Dear Mr. Smith,

4Creeks, Inc. is pleased to provide this trip generation estimate and phasing analysis for the proposed Barr & Wood Subdivision in Visalia, California. The project area is approximately 69.35 acres of vacant land between Shirk Road (Road 92) and Roeben Street north of the Whitendale Avenue alignment on APN 119 -022-041. The property is zoned as R -1-20 Prezone, Very Low Density Residential , and is planned as a 136-lot residential subdivision.

The project is proposed to be constructed in three (3) phases, as shown on the attached Phasing Plan.

Phase 1 consists of 45 lots located at the southeast section of the property. Two (2) of the 45 lots will be used as a temporary stormwater basin during Phase 1; therefore, 43 single-family homes will be constructed in Phase 1. Phase 2 consists of 44 lots located at the southwest section of the property. The two (2) lots that were used as a temporary stormwater basin during Phase 1 will be used to construct residences during Phase 2. Therefore, an additional 45 single-family homes will be constructed during Phase 2. Phase 3 will construct an additional 47 single-family residences located on the northern section of the property.

Trip Generation

Estimated trip generation was determined for daily, AM peak hour , and PM peak hour for the proposed project, as well as those generated at the completion of each phase of the project. The estimated trip generation for each was based on published trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual , 11
th Edition, 2021. 4Creeks used trip generation rates for the ITE land use Single-Family Detached Housing (ITE Code 210). Regression equations to determine trip estimates were used instead of the average rates based on procedures established in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, September 2017.

Table 1 shows the estimated trips generated for the proposed project, as well as the trips generated at the completion of each phase of the project. Phase 1 is expected to generate approximately 464 daily trips, including 35 AM peak hour trips (9 inbound, 26 outbound) and 45 PM peak hour trips (28 inbound, 17 outbound). The completion of Phase 2 is expected to generate approximately 906 daily trips, including 67 AM peak hour trips (17 inbound, 50 outbound) and 89 PM peak hour trips (56 inbound, 33 outbound).

Phase 3 completes the project and is expected to generate approximately 1,339 daily trips, including 99 AM peak hour trips (26 inbound, 73 outbound) and 133 PM peak hour trips (84 inbound, 49 outbound).

Ms. Leslie Blair, PE Page 2 of 2
May 10, 2022

324 S. Santa Fe, Suite A
Visalia, California 93292
www.4-creeks.com
TABLE 1: PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Single-Family
Detached Housing
(ITE Code 210) -
Project Phase
Total
Units
Daily* AM Peak Hour* PM Peak Hour*
Trips
%
In:Out In Out Total
%
In:Out In Out Total
Phase 1 43 464 26:74 9 26 35 63:37 28 17 45
Phase 2 (add 46 units) 89 906 26:74 17 50 67 63:37 56 33 89 Phase 3 (add 47 units) 136 1,339 26:74 26 73 99 63:37 84 49 133 Total Project 136 1,339 26:74 26 73 99 63:37 84 49 133
*Regression equations used based on procedure in Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, September 2017

The City of Visalia’s Procedures for Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) , March 2021, indicates residential developments generating less than 200 peak hour trips do not require a TIA. Therefore, as per the City’s TIA guidelines, it is anticipated the project will not require a TIA.

Construction Phasing

As previously indicated, the project will be constructed in three (3) phases as shown on the attached Phasing Plan. Phase 1 is the southeast section of the property on the west side of Roeben Street north of Whitendale Avenue. During Phase 1, Roeben Street will be constructed to its full width north along the property’s frontage. Whitendale Avenue will also be constructed to the two-third roadway width requirements along the project’s frontage to the west property line of lot 24 ( approximately 1,625-feet west of Roeben Street) during Phase 1. These improvements will allow access into Phase 1 of the subdivision from Roeben Street at Evergreen Court. Temporary emergency access will also be provided from Whitendale Avenue through lot 24 as shown on the Phasing Plan.

There will be 89 total residences constructed through Phase 2 which covers the southern porti on of the property. The two (2) lots used as a temporary stormwater basin during Phase 1 will be used to construct residences during Phase 2. The remaining roadway requirements for the project will be constructed during Phase 2. These include constructing the two-third roadway width requirements along the project’s Shirk Road frontage. It also includes constructing the continuation of the two-third roadway width requirement on Whitendale Avenue to Shirk Road. Therefore, all 89 residences will have access from both Roeben Street and Shirk Road with Phase 2.

Phase 1 provides access for the initial 43 residences from Roeben Street with temporary emergency access from Whitendale Avenue. Phase 2 provides access to 89 residences from Shirk Road and Roeben Street. Phase 2 completes the adjacent roadway requirements; therefore, the same access will be used during Phase 3. No access will be provided from Whitendale Avenue during Phases 2 or 3.

Should you have any questions or if 4Creeks can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call me or David Duda at (559) 802-3052.

Sincerely,

Lisa M. Wallis-Dutra, PE, TE, PTOE, RSP
1 Sr. Traffic Engineer

Visalia City CouncilAugust 7, 2023

Visalia City Council
August 7, 2023