0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 Page 4 of 39 Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM 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 Page 5 of 39 Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM 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 1.2771 1.2771 112.9917 60.5657 173.5575 2.9900e0030.0111 176.9252 Energy 0.0174 0.1489 0.0634 9.5000e0040.0120 0.0120 0.0120 0.0120 0.0000 363.9391 363.9391 0.0195 5.1200e003365.9517 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 28.4269 0.0000 28.4269 1.6800 0.0000 70.4263 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.8112 11.9706 14.7817 0.2897 6.9400e00324.0935 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 Page 6 of 39 Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM 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 1.2771 1.2771 112.9917 60.5657 173.5575 2.9900e0030.0111 176.9252 Energy 0.0174 0.1489 0.0634 9.5000e0040.0120 0.0120 0.0120 0.0120 0.0000 363.9391 363.9391 0.0195 5.1200e003365.9517 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 28.4269 0.0000 28.4269 1.6800 0.0000 70.4263 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.8112 11.9706 14.7817 0.2897 6.9400e00324.0935 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 39 Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM 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 0.29
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 Page 8 of 39 Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1866 1.3985 0.5263 9.0000e0030.0863 0.0863 0.0863 0.0863 0.0000 80.0092 80.0092 0.0152 0.0000 80.3895 Total 0.1866 1.3985 0.5263 9.0000e0030.3931 0.0863 0.4794 0.2021 0.0863 0.2884 0.0000 80.0092 80.0092 0.0152 0.0000 80.3895 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 Page 9 of 39 Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 6.3200e0038.0700e0030.0643 3.0000e0052.8700e0038.0000e0052.9400e0037.6000e0047.0000e0058.3000e0040.0000 3.2008 3.2008 5.1000e0044.0000e0043.3329 Total 6.3200e0038.0700e0030.0643 3.0000e0052.8700e0038.0000e0052.9400e0037.6000e0047.0000e0058.3000e0040.0000 3.2008 3.2008 5.1000e0044.0000e0043.3329 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1866 1.3985 0.5263 9.0000e0030.0863 0.0863 0.0863 0.0863 0.0000 80.0091 80.0091 0.0152 0.0000 80.3894 Total 0.1866 1.3985 0.5263 9.0000e0030.3931 0.0863 0.4794 0.2021 0.0863 0.2884 0.0000 80.0091 80.0091 0.0152 0.0000 80.3894 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 39 Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 6.3200e0038.0700e0030.0643 3.0000e0052.8700e0038.0000e0052.9400e0037.6000e0047.0000e0058.3000e0040.0000 3.2008 3.2008 5.1000e0044.0000e0043.3329 Total 6.3200e0038.0700e0030.0643 3.0000e0052.8700e0038.0000e0052.9400e0037.6000e0047.0000e0058.3000e0040.0000 3.2008 3.2008 5.1000e0044.0000e0043.3329 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.6626 5.6630 2.5349 0.0376 0.2879 0.2879 0.2879 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 Page 11 of 39 Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0193 0.0247 0.1965 1.1000e0048.7600e0032.3000e0048.9900e0032.3300e0032.1000e0042.5400e0030.0000 9.7802 9.7802 1.5500e0031.2200e00310.1837 Total 0.0193 0.0247 0.1965 1.1000e0048.7600e0032.3000e0048.9900e0032.3300e0032.1000e0042.5400e0030.0000 9.7802 9.7802 1.5500e0031.2200e00310.1837 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.6626 5.6630 2.5349 0.0376 0.2879 0.2879 0.2879 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 Page 12 of 39 Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0193 0.0247 0.1965 1.1000e0048.7600e0032.3000e0048.9900e0032.3300e0032.1000e0042.5400e0030.0000 9.7802 9.7802 1.5500e0031.2200e00310.1837 Total 0.0193 0.0247 0.1965 1.1000e0048.7600e0032.3000e0048.9900e0032.3300e0032.1000e0042.5400e0030.0000 9.7802 9.7802 1.5500e0031.2200e00310.1837 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 0.1914 0.1914 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 0.1914 0.1914 0.1914 0.0000 144.5736 144.5736 0.0337 0.0000 145.4170 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 39 Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0239 0.2277 0.0908 1.8200e0035.4500e0038.9400e0030.0144 1.5800e0038.5500e0030.0101 0.0000 20.1238 20.1238 1.1000e0033.0400e00321.0571 Worker 0.0473 0.0604 0.4813 2.6000e0040.0215 5.7000e0040.0220 5.7100e0035.3000e0046.2300e0030.0000 23.9615 23.9615 3.8000e0033.0000e00324.9501 Total 0.0712 0.2880 0.5721 2.0800e0030.0269 9.5100e0030.0364 7.2900e0039.0800e0030.0164 0.0000 44.0854 44.0854 4.9000e0036.0400e00346.0073 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 0.1914 0.1914 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 0.1914 0.1914 0.1914 0.0000 144.5734 144.5734 0.0337 0.0000 145.4168 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 39 Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0239 0.2277 0.0908 1.8200e0035.4500e0038.9400e0030.0144 1.5800e0038.5500e0030.0101 0.0000 20.1238 20.1238 1.1000e0033.0400e00321.0571 Worker 0.0473 0.0604 0.4813 2.6000e0040.0215 5.7000e0040.0220 5.7100e0035.3000e0046.2300e0030.0000 23.9615 23.9615 3.8000e0033.0000e00324.9501 Total 0.0712 0.2880 0.5721 2.0800e0030.0269 9.5100e0030.0364 7.2900e0039.0800e0030.0164 0.0000 44.0854 44.0854 4.9000e0036.0400e00346.0073 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 0.4524 0.4524 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 0.4524 0.4524 0.4524 0.0000 341.7193 341.7193 0.0797 0.0000 343.7129 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 39 Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0565 0.5381 0.2145 4.2900e0030.0129 0.0211 0.0340 3.7300e0030.0202 0.0239 0.0000 47.5654 47.5654 2.5900e0037.1900e00349.7714 Worker 0.1118 0.1427 1.1376 6.2000e0040.0507 1.3400e0030.0521 0.0135 1.2400e0030.0147 0.0000 56.6364 56.6364 8.9800e0037.0900e00358.9731 Total 0.1683 0.6808 1.3522 4.9100e0030.0636 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 0.4524 0.4524 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 0.4524 0.4524 0.4524 0.0000 341.7189 341.7189 0.0797 0.0000 343.7124 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 39 Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0565 0.5381 0.2145 4.2900e0030.0129 0.0211 0.0340 3.7300e0030.0202 0.0239 0.0000 47.5654 47.5654 2.5900e0037.1900e00349.7714 Worker 0.1118 0.1427 1.1376 6.2000e0040.0507 1.3400e0030.0521 0.0135 1.2400e0030.0147 0.0000 56.6364 56.6364 8.9800e0037.0900e00358.9731 Total 0.1683 0.6808 1.3522 4.9100e0030.0636 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 0.4541 0.4541 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 0.4541 0.4541 0.4541 0.0000 343.0336 343.0336 0.0801 0.0000 345.0348 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 39 Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0567 0.5402 0.2154 4.3100e0030.0129 0.0212 0.0341 3.7400e0030.0203 0.0240 0.0000 47.7483 47.7483 2.6000e0037.2100e00349.9628 Worker 0.1122 0.1433 1.1420 6.2000e0040.0509 1.3500e0030.0523 0.0135 1.2500e0030.0148 0.0000 56.8542 56.8542 9.0100e0037.1200e00359.1999 Total 0.1689 0.6834 1.3574 4.9300e0030.0639 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 0.4541 0.4541 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 0.4541 0.4541 0.4541 0.0000 343.0332 343.0332 0.0801 0.0000 345.0344 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 39 Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0567 0.5402 0.2154 4.3100e0030.0129 0.0212 0.0341 3.7400e0030.0203 0.0240 0.0000 47.7483 47.7483 2.6000e0037.2100e00349.9628 Worker 0.1122 0.1433 1.1420 6.2000e0040.0509 1.3500e0030.0523 0.0135 1.2500e0030.0148 0.0000 56.8542 56.8542 9.0100e0037.1200e00359.1999 Total 0.1689 0.6834 1.3574 4.9300e0030.0639 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 0.4558 0.4558 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 0.4558 0.4558 0.4558 0.0000 344.3479 344.3479 0.0804 0.0000 346.3568 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 39 Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0569 0.5422 0.2162 4.3300e0030.0130 0.0213 0.0343 3.7500e0030.0204 0.0241 0.0000 47.9313 47.9313 2.6100e0037.2400e00350.1542 Worker 0.1127 0.1438 1.1464 6.2000e0040.0511 1.3500e0030.0525 0.0136 1.2500e0030.0149 0.0000 57.0720 57.0720 9.0500e0037.1400e00359.4267 Total 0.1696 0.6861 1.3626 4.9500e0030.0641 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 0.4558 0.4558 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 0.4558 0.4558 0.4558 0.0000 344.3475 344.3475 0.0804 0.0000 346.3564 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 39 Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0569 0.5422 0.2162 4.3300e0030.0130 0.0213 0.0343 3.7500e0030.0204 0.0241 0.0000 47.9313 47.9313 2.6100e0037.2400e00350.1542 Worker 0.1127 0.1438 1.1464 6.2000e0040.0511 1.3500e0030.0525 0.0136 1.2500e0030.0149 0.0000 57.0720 57.0720 9.0500e0037.1400e00359.4267 Total 0.1696 0.6861 1.3626 4.9500e0030.0641 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 0.3775 0.3775 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 0.3775 0.3775 0.3775 0.0000 285.2042 285.2042 0.0666 0.0000 286.8680 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 39 Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0471 0.4491 0.1791 3.5800e0030.0108 0.0176 0.0284 3.1100e0030.0169 0.0200 0.0000 39.6988 39.6988 2.1700e0036.0000e00341.5400 Worker 0.0933 0.1191 0.9495 5.2000e0040.0424 1.1200e0030.0435 0.0113 1.0400e0030.0123 0.0000 47.2696 47.2696 7.4900e0035.9200e00349.2198 Total 0.1404 0.5682 1.1285 4.1000e0030.0531 0.0188 0.0719 0.0144 0.0179 0.0323 0.0000 86.9684 86.9684 9.6600e0030.0119 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 0.3775 0.3775 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 0.3775 0.3775 0.3775 0.0000 285.2039 285.2039 0.0666 0.0000 286.8677 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 39 Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0471 0.4491 0.1791 3.5800e0030.0108 0.0176 0.0284 3.1100e0030.0169 0.0200 0.0000 39.6988 39.6988 2.1700e0036.0000e00341.5400 Worker 0.0933 0.1191 0.9495 5.2000e0040.0424 1.1200e0030.0435 0.0113 1.0400e0030.0123 0.0000 47.2696 47.2696 7.4900e0035.9200e00349.2198 Total 0.1404 0.5682 1.1285 4.1000e0030.0531 0.0188 0.0719 0.0144 0.0179 0.0323 0.0000 86.9684 86.9684 9.6600e0030.0119 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 5.9300e0030.0580 0.0580 0.0580 0.0580 0.0000 53.0189 53.0189 0.0104 0.0000 53.2787 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.1273 0.9167 0.3959 5.9300e0030.0580 0.0580 0.0580 0.0580 0.0000 53.0189 53.0189 0.0104 0.0000 53.2787 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 39 Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.7900e0037.3900e0030.0589 3.0000e0052.6300e0037.0000e0052.7000e0037.0000e0046.0000e0057.6000e0040.0000 2.9341 2.9341 4.7000e0043.7000e0043.0551 Total 5.7900e0037.3900e0030.0589 3.0000e0052.6300e0037.0000e0052.7000e0037.0000e0046.0000e0057.6000e0040.0000 2.9341 2.9341 4.7000e0043.7000e0043.0551 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 5.9300e0030.0580 0.0580 0.0580 0.0580 0.0000 53.0189 53.0189 0.0104 0.0000 53.2786 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.1273 0.9167 0.3959 5.9300e0030.0580 0.0580 0.0580 0.0580 0.0000 53.0189 53.0189 0.0104 0.0000 53.2786 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 39 Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.7900e0037.3900e0030.0589 3.0000e0052.6300e0037.0000e0052.7000e0037.0000e0046.0000e0057.6000e0040.0000 2.9341 2.9341 4.7000e0043.7000e0043.0551 Total 5.7900e0037.3900e0030.0589 3.0000e0052.6300e0037.0000e0052.7000e0037.0000e0046.0000e0057.6000e0040.0000 2.9341 2.9341 4.7000e0043.7000e0043.0551 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 3.5000e0040.0270 0.0270 0.0249 0.0249 0.0000 34.5192 34.5192 0.0101 0.0000 34.7704 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0437 0.4821 0.2393 3.5000e0040.0270 0.0270 0.0249 0.0249 0.0000 34.5192 34.5192 0.0101 0.0000 34.7704 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 39 Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.9900e0033.3700e0030.0286 2.0000e0051.8500e0033.0000e0051.8800e0034.9000e0043.0000e0055.2000e0040.0000 2.0006 2.0006 2.3000e0041.8000e0042.0594 Total 2.9900e0033.3700e0030.0286 2.0000e0051.8500e0033.0000e0051.8800e0034.9000e0043.0000e0055.2000e0040.0000 2.0006 2.0006 2.3000e0041.8000e0042.0594 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 3.5000e0040.0270 0.0270 0.0249 0.0249 0.0000 34.5191 34.5191 0.0101 0.0000 34.7703 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0437 0.4821 0.2393 3.5000e0040.0270 0.0270 0.0249 0.0249 0.0000 34.5191 34.5191 0.0101 0.0000 34.7703 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 39 Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.9900e0033.3700e0030.0286 2.0000e0051.8500e0033.0000e0051.8800e0034.9000e0043.0000e0055.2000e0040.0000 2.0006 2.0006 2.3000e0041.8000e0042.0594 Total 2.9900e0033.3700e0030.0286 2.0000e0051.8500e0033.0000e0051.8800e0034.9000e0043.0000e0055.2000e0040.0000 2.0006 2.0006 2.3000e0041.8000e0042.0594 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0225 0.1334 0.0751 1.1000e0040.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0000 9.5747 9.5747 1.8400e0030.0000 9.6206 Total 2.3202 0.1334 0.0751 1.1000e0040.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0000 9.5747 9.5747 1.8400e0030.0000 9.6206 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 39 Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.8200e0035.4400e0030.0461 4.0000e0052.9900e0035.0000e0053.0300e0037.9000e0044.0000e0058.4000e0040.0000 3.2267 3.2267 3.7000e0042.9000e0043.3216 Total 4.8200e0035.4400e0030.0461 4.0000e0052.9900e0035.0000e0053.0300e0037.9000e0044.0000e0058.4000e0040.0000 3.2267 3.2267 3.7000e0042.9000e0043.3216 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0225 0.1334 0.0751 1.1000e0040.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0000 9.5747 9.5747 1.8400e0030.0000 9.6206 Total 2.3202 0.1334 0.0751 1.1000e0040.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0000 9.5747 9.5747 1.8400e0030.0000 9.6206 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 39 Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.8200e0035.4400e0030.0461 4.0000e0052.9900e0035.0000e0053.0300e0037.9000e0044.0000e0058.4000e0040.0000 3.2267 3.2267 3.7000e0042.9000e0043.3216 Total 4.8200e0035.4400e0030.0461 4.0000e0052.9900e0035.0000e0053.0300e0037.9000e0044.0000e0058.4000e0040.0000 3.2267 3.2267 3.7000e0042.9000e0043.3216 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 39 Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM 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 Page 30 of 39 Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 191.4795 191.4795 0.0162 1.9600e003192.4673 Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 191.4795 191.4795 0.0162 1.9600e003192.4673 NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.0174 0.1489 0.0634 9.5000e0040.0120 0.0120 0.0120 0.0120 0.0000 172.4596 172.4596 3.3100e0033.1600e003173.4844 NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.0174 0.1489 0.0634 9.5000e0040.0120 0.0120 0.0120 0.0120 0.0000 172.4596 172.4596 3.3100e0033.1600e003173.4844
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 31 of 39 Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM 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
5.2 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 9.5000e0040.0120 0.0120 0.0120 0.0120 0.0000 172.4596 172.4596 3.3100e0033.1600e003173.4844 Total 0.0174 0.1489 0.0634 9.5000e0040.0120 0.0120 0.0120 0.0120 0.0000 172.4596 172.4596 3.3100e0033.1600e003173.4844 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 9.5000e0040.0120 0.0120 0.0120 0.0120 0.0000 172.4596 172.4596 3.3100e0033.1600e003173.4844 Total 0.0174 0.1489 0.0634 9.5000e0040.0120 0.0120 0.0120 0.0120 0.0000 172.4596 172.4596 3.3100e0033.1600e003173.4844 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 32 of 39 Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM 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 1.9600e003192.4673
Total 191.4795 0.0162 1.9600e003192.4673
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
1.0797e
+006
191.4795 0.0162 1.9600e003192.4673
Total 191.4795 0.0162 1.9600e003192.4673
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 33 of 39 Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM 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 1.2771 1.2771 112.9917 60.5657 173.5575 2.9900e0030.0111 176.9252 Unmitigated 9.6165 0.1587 10.3244 0.0150 1.2771 1.2771 1.2771 1.2771 112.9917 60.5657 173.5575 2.9900e0030.0111 176.9252
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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products
0.9561 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 8.3949 0.1461 9.2751 0.0150 1.2716 1.2716 1.2716 1.2716 112.9917 58.9162 171.9079 1.1300e0030.0111 175.2291 Landscaping 0.0358 0.0126 1.0493 5.0000e0055.4400e0035.4400e0035.4400e0035.4400e0030.0000 1.6495 1.6495 1.8600e0030.0000 1.6961 Total 9.6165 0.1587 10.3244 0.0150 1.2771 1.2771 1.2771 1.2771 112.9917 60.5657 173.5575 2.9900e0030.0111 176.9252 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 34 of 39 Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM 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
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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products
0.9561 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 8.3949 0.1461 9.2751 0.0150 1.2716 1.2716 1.2716 1.2716 112.9917 58.9162 171.9079 1.1300e0030.0111 175.2291 Landscaping 0.0358 0.0126 1.0493 5.0000e0055.4400e0035.4400e0035.4400e0035.4400e0030.0000 1.6495 1.6495 1.8600e0030.0000 1.6961 Total 9.6165 0.1587 10.3244 0.0150 1.2771 1.2771 1.2771 1.2771 112.9917 60.5657 173.5575 2.9900e0030.0111 176.9252 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 35 of 39 Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM 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 6.9400e00324.0935
Unmitigated 14.7817 0.2897 6.9400e00324.0935
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 6.9400e00324.0935
Total 14.7817 0.2897 6.9400e00324.0935
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 36 of 39 Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM 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 6.9400e00324.0935
Total 14.7817 0.2897 6.9400e00324.0935
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 Page 37 of 39 Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM 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 Page 38 of 39 Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM 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
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 Page 39 of 39 Date: 4/21/2022 10:59 AM 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
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 Resources 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.
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
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
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 17 following sensitive wildlife species: Two amphibian species include:
California red-legged frog, and California tiger salamander. Three bird 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 site: 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-statusspecies 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.
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 mammal Burrows that would provide adequate refuge for San Joaquin kitfox. Powerline poles exist along the main roads, but not on the
property itself, and did not appear to harbor any raptor nests. The irrigation canal on the east side of the property has dirt 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
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)
• 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 Inventory 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
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).
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 that 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
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 likelihood 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 specialstatus 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
• 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. -ORSpecies 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, slowflowing 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
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, coolwater 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 windprotected 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 grassbottomed or mudbottomed 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
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
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, pinyonJuniper 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
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, blacktipped 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 keyhole shape. Dens 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, yellowbilled cuckoos can be found in tropical habitats with similar structure, such as scrub forest and mangroves.
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 adequate 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.
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/SurveyProtocols#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
APPENDIX A
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Project Area
Photo 1 – Northern Boundary (View East)
Photo 2 – Eastern Boundary (View South)
Photo 3 – Southern Boundary (View West)
Photo 4 – Western Boundary (View North)
Photo 5 – Center of Project Site (North to South)
Photo 6 – Center of Project Site (South to North)
Photo 7 – Center of Project Site (East to West)
Photo 8 – Center of Project Site (West to East)
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 cultural resources in conjunction with CEQA, Taylored Archaeology conducted a cultural resource study under contract with 4Creeks, Inc. to assess whether 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 reported 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 Parks and Recreation forms but was not formally evaluated for significance and eligibility 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:
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 event of accidental discovery of unidentified archaeological remains during development or ground- 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 then 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 iv
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 historical 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 guidelines 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 guidelines §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 cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
(A) included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.
(B) included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.
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 references cited within this report. The report also contains the following appendices: Qualifications of key personnel (Appendix A), the CHRIS records search results (Appendix B), and 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 shallow 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 were 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 along the former shoreline of Tulare Lake. Archaeological finds 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 dramatically 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 technologies. Finally, the Emergent Period (850 cal B.P. - Historic Era) was generally marked by an ever-increasing specialization in tools, and the bow and arrow generally replaced the dominance of the dart and atlatl. Cultural traditions ancestral to those recorded during ethnographic research in the early 1900s are identifiable.
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, 1945), Driver (1937), Harrington (1957), Latta (1977), and Wallace (1978). Much of the research from these ethnographers focuses on the central Yokuts tribes due to the northernmost tribes being impacted by Euro-Americans during the California Gold Rush of the mid 1800s, and by the southernmost 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 recent 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 wind 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 with 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 search 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 the 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. Malaria 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 like Jedediah Smith or horse thieves like Pegleg Smith (Clough and Secrest 1984). In fact, horse and other livestock theft was so rampant that ranching operations on the Rancho Laguna de Tache by the Kings River and Rancho del San Joaquin Rancho along the San Joaquin River could not be properly established (Cook 1962). With the end of the Mexican American War and the beginning of the gold rush in 1848, the San Joaquin Valley became more populated with ranchers and prospectors. 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 business 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 lead 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 builtenvironment 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 Section 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 1927. 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 depicted 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 Projectsite 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 an intensive review of available historical aerial 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 corner 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 structures 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 traverses 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 the 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 are 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 Company who confirmed that they 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 Tribe 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, the 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. However, 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 development comprised of approximately 136 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 reported 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 evaluated for significance and eligibility 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 event of accidental discovery of unidentified archaeological remains during development or groundmoving 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 then identify the Most Likely Descendent who will be afforded an opportunity to make recommendations regarding the treatment and disposition of the remains.
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: History 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: Victor 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 Sierra 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. Klar.
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. 2 nd 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:T19S-R-24E, accessed July 10, 2022.
U.S. Agricultural Adjustment Administration (USAAA)
1946 Fresno County, California Aerial Survey No. 1946 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 Survey, 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 – 2022 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 as an archaeologist. She has conducted pedestrian surveys, supervised Extended Phase I 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 to Assembly Bill 52 tribal comments. Ms. Sauls also has an extensive background supervising laboratory processing, cataloging, and conservation of prehistoric and historical archaeological collections. In addition, she worked with the Rock Art Heritage Group in the management, preservation, and presentation of rock art in museums throughout England, including a thorough analysis of the British Museum’s rock art collections. At 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 in
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 in 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. Invoices for Information Center services will be sent under separate cover from the California State University, Bakersfield Accounting Office.
Thank you for using the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS).
Sincerely,
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
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
[email protected]
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
[email protected]
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@tulerivertribensn.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
[email protected]
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 not 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), circulation 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 significant 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, RSP1
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, 11th 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 portion 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, RSP1
Sr. Traffic Engineer
Cc: David Duda, AICP
June 21, 2023
City of Visalia
Planning Division
315 E. Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
Project: Mitigated Negative Declaration for Barr-Wood Subdivision District CEQA Reference No: 20230521
To Whom It May Concern:
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) from the City of Visalia (City) for the Barr-Wood Subdivision. Per the MND, the project consists of the construction of 136 low-density single family homes (Project). The Project is located west of South Roeben Street and East of South Shirk Road in Visalia, CA.
The District offers the following comments regarding the Project:
Project Related Emissions
Based on information provided to the District, Project specific annual criteria pollutant emissions from construction and operation are not expected to exceed any of the significance thresholds as identified in the District’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI):
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI.pdf.
Operational Emissions
Operational (ongoing) air emissions from mobile sources and stationary sources should be analyzed separately. For reference, the District’s significance thresholds are identified in the District’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI.pdf.
Recommended Mitigation Measure: At a minimum, project related impacts on air quality should be reduced to levels of significance through incorporation of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 2 of 7 District Reference No: 20230521
June 21, 2023
design elements such as the use of cleaner Heavy Heavy-Duty (HHD) trucks and vehicles, measures that reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMTs), and measures that increase energy efficiency. More information on transportation mitigation measures can be found at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/ob0pweru/clean-air-measures.pdf Health Risk Screening/Assessment
The MND states “The project does not include any project components identified by the California Air Resources Board that could potentially impact any sensitive receptors. These include heavily traveled roads, distribution centers, fueling stations, and dry-cleaning operations. The project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.”
Although the Project does not include heavily traveled roads, distribution centers, fueling stations, and dry-cleaning operations, the Project’s potential health risk impact to sensitive receptors (residences, businesses, hospitals, day-care facilities, health care facilities, etc.) in the area should be evaluated by the City and any potentially significant risk should be mitigated to help limit exposure of sensitive receptors to emissions.
To determine potential health impacts on surrounding receptors (residences, businesses, hospitals, day-care facilities, health care facilities, etc.) a Prioritization and/or a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) should be performed for the Project. These health risk determinations should quantify and characterize potential Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) identified by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment/California Air Resources Board (OEHHA/CARB) that pose a present or potential hazard to human health.
Health risk analyses should include all potential air emissions from the project, which include emissions from construction of the project, including multi-year construction, as well as ongoing operational activities of the project. Note, two common sources of TACs can be attributed to diesel exhaust emitted from heavy-duty off-road earth moving equipment during construction, and from ongoing operation of heavy-duty on-road trucks.
Prioritization (Screening Health Risk Assessment):
A “Prioritization” is the recommended method for a conservative screening-level health risk assessment. The Prioritization should be performed using the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) methodology.
The District recommends that a more refined analysis, in the form of an HRA, be performed for any project resulting in a Prioritization score of 10 or greater. This is because the prioritization results are a conservative health risk representation, while the detailed HRA provides a more accurate health risk evaluation.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 3 of 7 District Reference No: 20230521
June 21, 2023
To assist land use agencies and project proponents with Prioritization analyses, the District has created a prioritization calculator based on the aforementioned CAPCOA guidelines, which can be found here:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/emission_factors/Criteria/Toxics/Utilities/PRIORI TIZATION-CALCULATOR.xls
Health Risk Assessment:
Prior to performing an HRA, it is strongly recommended that land use agencies/ project proponents develop and submit for District review a health risk modeling protocol that outlines the sources and methodologies that will be used to perform the HRA. This step will ensure all components are addressed when performing the HRA.
A development project would be considered to have a potentially significant health risk if the HRA demonstrates that the project-related health impacts would exceed the District’s significance threshold of 20 in a million for carcinogenic risk, or 1.0 for either the Acute or Chronic Hazard Indices.
A project with a significant health risk would trigger all feasible mitigation measures.
The District strongly recommends that development projects that result in a significant health risk not be approved by the land use agency.
The District is available to review HRA protocols and analyses. For HRA submittals please provide the following information electronically to the District for review:
HRA (AERMOD) modeling files
HARP2 files
Summary of emissions source locations, emissions rates, and emission factor calculations and methodologies.
For assistance, please contact the District’s Technical Services Department by:
E-Mailing inquiries to: [email protected]
Calling (559) 230-5900
Recommended Measure: Development projects resulting in TAC emissions should be located an adequate distance from residential areas and other sensitive receptors in accordance to CARB's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective located at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/resourcecenter/strategy-development/land-use-resources.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 4 of 7 District Reference No: 20230521
June 21, 2023
Vegetative Barriers and Urban Greening
There are residential units located north and west of the Project. The District suggests the City consider the feasibility of incorporating vegetative barriers and urban greening as a measure to further reduce air pollution exposure on sensitive receptors (e.g., residential units).
While various emission control techniques and programs exist to reduce air quality emissions from mobile and stationary sources, vegetative barriers have been shown to be an additional measure to potentially reduce a population’s exposure to air pollution through the interception of airborne particles and the update of gaseous pollutants. Examples of vegetative barriers include, but are not limited to the following: trees, bushes, shrubs, or a mix of these. Generally, a higher and thicker vegetative barrier with full coverage will result in greater reductions in downwind pollutant concentrations. In the same manner, urban greening is also a way to help improve air quality and public health in addition to enhancing the overall beautification of a community with drought tolerant, low-maintenance greenery.
Clean Lawn and Garden Equipment in the Community
Since the Project consists of residential development, gas-powered residential lawn and garden equipment have the potential to result in an increase of NOx and PM2.5 emissions. Utilizing electric lawn care equipment can provide residents with immediate economic, environmental, and health benefits. The District recommends the Project proponent consider the District’s Clean Green Yard Machines (CGYM) program which provides incentive funding for replacement of existing gas powered lawn and garden equipment. More information on the District CGYM program and funding can be found at: http://www.valleyair.org/grants/cgym.htm and http://valleyair.org/grants/cgym-commercial.htm.
District Rules and Regulations
The District issues permits for many types of air pollution sources, and regulates some activities that do not require permits. A project subject to District rules and regulations would reduce its impacts on air quality through compliance with the District’s regulatory framework. In general, a regulation is a collection of individual rules, each of which deals with a specific topic. As an example, Regulation II (Permits) includes District Rule 2010 (Permits Required), Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review), Rule 2520 (Federally Mandated Operating Permits), and several other rules pertaining to District permitting requirements and processes.
The list of rules below is neither exhaustive nor exclusive. Current District rules can be found online at: www.valleyair.org/rules/1ruleslist.htm. To identify other District rules or regulations that apply to future projects, or to obtain information about San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 5 of 7 District Reference No: 20230521
June 21, 2023
District permit requirements, the project proponents are strongly encouraged to contact the District’s Small Business Assistance (SBA) Office at (559) 230-5888.
District Rules 2010 and 2201 - Air Quality Permitting for Stationary Sources
Stationary Source emissions include any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any affected pollutant directly or as a fugitive emission. District Rule 2010 (Permits Required) requires operators of emission sources to obtain an Authority to Construct (ATC) and Permit to Operate (PTO) from the District. District Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) requires that new and modified stationary sources of emissions mitigate their emissions using Best Available Control Technology (BACT).
This Project may be subject to District Rule 2010 (Permits Required) and Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) and may require District permits. Prior to construction, the Project proponent should submit to the District an application for an ATC. For further information or assistance, the project proponent may contact the District’s SBA Office at (559) 230-5888.
District Rule 9510 - Indirect Source Review (ISR)
The Project is subject to District Rule 9510 because it will receives a projectlevel discretionary approval from a public agency and will equal or exceed 50 dwelling units of residential development.
The purpose of District Rule 9510 is to reduce the growth in both NOx and PM emissions associated with development and transportation projects from mobile and area sources; specifically, the emissions associated with the construction and subsequent operation of development projects. The ISR Rule requires developers to mitigate their NOx and PM emissions by incorporating clean air design elements into their projects. Should the proposed development project clean air design elements be insufficient to meet the required emission reductions, developers must pay a fee that ultimately funds incentive projects to achieve off-site emissions reductions.
Per Section 5.0 of the ISR Rule, an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application is required to be submitted no later than applying for project-level approval from a public agency. Currently for this Project, the District received an AIA application (ISR project #20220304).
Information about how to comply with District Rule 9510 can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/ISR/ISRHome.htm.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 6 of 7 District Reference No: 20230521
June 21, 2023
The AIA application form can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/ISR/ISRFormsAndApplications.htm.
District staff is available to provide assistance and can be reached by phone at (559) 230-5900 or by email at [email protected].
District Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings)
The Project will be subject to District Rule 4601 since it is expected to utilize architectural coatings. Architectural coatings are paints, varnishes, sealers, or stains that are applied to structures, portable buildings, pavements or curbs.
The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from architectural coatings.
In addition, this rule specifies architectural coatings storage, cleanup and labeling requirements. Additional information on how to comply with District Rule 4601 requirements can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/r4601.pdf
District Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions)
The project proponent may be required to submit a Construction Notification Form or submit and receive approval of a Dust Control Plan prior to commencing any earthmoving activities as described in Regulation VIII, specifically Rule 8021 – Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities.
Should the project result in at least 1-acre in size, the project proponent shall provide written notification to the District at least 48 hours prior to the project proponents intent to commence any earthmoving activities pursuant to District Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). Also, should the project result in the disturbance of 5- acres or more, or will include moving, depositing, or relocating more than 2,500 cubic yards per day of bulk materials, the project proponent shall submit to the District a Dust Control Plan pursuant to District Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). For additional information regarding the written notification or Dust Control Plan requirements, please contact District Compliance staff at (559) 230-5950.
The application for both the Construction Notification and Dust Control Plan can be found online at:
https://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/PM10/forms/DCP-Form.docx Information about District Regulation VIII can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/pm10/compliance_pm10.htm San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 7 of 7 District Reference No: 20230521
June 21, 2023
District Rule 4901 - Wood Burning Fireplaces and Heaters The purpose of this rule is to limit emissions of carbon monoxide and particulate matter from wood burning fireplaces, wood burning heaters, and outdoor wood burning devices. This rule establishes limitations on the installation of new wood burning fireplaces and wood burning heaters.
Specifically, at elevations below 3,000 feet in areas with natural gas service, no person shall install a wood burning fireplace, low mass fireplace, masonry heater, or wood burning heater.
Information about District Rule 4901 can be found online at:
http://valleyair.org/rule4901/
Other District Rules and Regulations
The Project may also be subject to the following District rules: Rule 4102 (Nuisance) and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations).
District Comment Letter
The District recommends that a copy of the District’s comments be provided to the Project proponent.
If you have any questions or require further information, please contact Matt Crow by email at [email protected] or by phone at (559) 230-5931.
Sincerely,
Brian Clements
Director of Permit Services
For: Mark Montelongo
Program Manager
City of o/isaCia Site <Pfan �
315<£.Jl_cequia)f.TJe., Visa[ia, Gl 93291
April 4, 2022
Site Plan Review No. 2020-193-F:
Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 17.28 the Site Plan Review process has found that your application complies with the general plan, municipal code, policies, and improvement standards of the city. A copy of each Departments/Divisions comments that were discussed with you at the Site Plan Review meeting are attached to this document.
Based upon Zoning Ordinance Section 17.28.070, this is your Site Plan Review determination. However, your project requires discretionary action as stated on the attached Site Plan Review comments. You may now proceed with filing discretionary applications to the Planning Division.
This is your Site Plan Review Permit; your Site Plan Review became effective March 23, 2022. A site plan review permit shall lapse and become null and void one year following the date of approval unless, prior to the expiration of one year, a building permit is issued by the building official, and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion.
If you have any questions regarding this action, please call the Community Development Department at (559) 713-4359.
Respectfully,
Paul Bernal
Community Development Director
315 E. Acequia Ave.
Visalia, CA 93291
Attachment(s):
• Site Plan Review Comments
No comments.
XX See comments below
Revisions required prior to submitting final plans. See comments below.
Resubmittal required. See comments below.
XX
XX Customer must provide combination or keys for access to locked gates/bins Type of refuse service not indicated.
Location of bin enclosure not acceptable. See comments below.
Bin enclosure not to city standards double.
Inadequate number of bins to provide sufficient service. See comments below.
Drive approach too narrow for refuse trucks access. See comments below.
XX Paved areas should be engineered to withstand a 55,000 lb. refuse truck.
Bin enclosure gates are required
Hammerhead turnaround must be built per city standards.
XX Cul - de - sac must be built per city standards.
Area in front of refuse enclosure must be marked off indicating no parking Customer will be required to roll container out to curb for service.
XX
Comment
Jason Serpa, Solid Waste Manager, 559-713-4533
Edward Zuniga, Solid Waste Supervisor, 559-713-4338
Nathan Garza, Solid Waste,559-713-4532
March 23, 2022
Customer responsible for all cardboard and other bulky recyclables to be broken down before disposing of in recycle containers
ALL refuse enclosures must be R-3 OR R-4
Area not adequate for allowing refuse truck turning radius of : Commercial 50 ft. outside 36 ft. inside; Residential 35 ft. outside, 20 ft. inside.
Bin enclosures are for city refuse containers only. Grease drums or any other items are not allowed to be stored inside bin enclosures.
Enclosure will have to be designed and located for a STAB service (DIRECT ACCESS) with no less than 38' clear space in front of the bin, included the front concrete pad.
Must be a concrete slab in front of enclosure as per city standards, the width of the enclosure by ten(10) feet, minimum of six(6) inches in depth.
Roll off compactor's must have a clearance of 3 feet from any wall on both sides and there must be a minimum of 53 feet clearance in front of the compactor to allow the truck enough room to provide service.
City ordinance 8.28.120-130 (effective 07/19/18) requires contractor to contract with City for removal of construction debris unless transported in equipment owned by contractor or unless contracting with a franchise permittee for removal of debris utilizing roll-off boxes.
City standard (3-can) residential services to be assigned per address.
CITY OF VISALIA
20193
SOLID WASTE DIVISION
336 N. BEN MADDOX
VISALIA CA. 93291
713 - 4532
COMMERCIAL BIN SERVICE
0100200400
Feet
General Plan
Land Use Map
S Roeben St
S Shirk Rd
Ave 280 W Caldwell AveRd 96
S Aspen St
S Shirk St
W Walnut Ave
S Jacques St
Private St
W Whitendale Ave
W Judy Ave
S Teddy St
W Lisendra Dr
W Judy Ct
W Mary Ave
W Howard Ct
W Harter Ave S Savannah St
S Peppertree Ct
W Paradise Ave
W La Vida Dr
SW Cottonwood Cir
S Aspen Ct
S Augusta St
W Sunnyside Dr
W Cambridge Ave
S Peppertree St
S Augusta Ct
W Mary Ct
W Monte Verde Ave
S El Cajon Ct
W Vassar Ave
W Laura Ave
S Anthony Ct
W Evergreen Ave
W Feemster Ct
W Cherry Ave
W Country Ave
W Dartmouth Ave
W Laura Ct
W Harter Ct
S Cottonwood Ct
W Seeger Ct
W Walnut Ave
S Tommy Ct
W Laura Ct
W Mary Ave
W Judy Ct
Private St
S Teddy St
S Shirk Rd
W Vassar Ave
W Harter Ave
W Seeger Ct
EVANS
WATSON
S FORK PERSIAN
Vicinity Map
Mooney
Demaree
Houston
Main
Goshen
Caldwell Akers
Hwy 99
Walnut
Shirk
Pla za
Hwy 198
Noble .
Conservation
Public Institutional
Parks/Recreation
Reserve
Residential Low Density
Residential Medium Density
Residential Very Low Density
WATERWAYS
0100200400
Feet
Zoning Map
S Shirk Rd
S Roeben St
Ave 280 W Caldwell Ave Rd 96
S Aspen St
S Shirk St
W Walnut Ave
S Jacques St
Private St
W Whitendale Ave
W Judy Ave
S Teddy St
W Lisendra Dr
W Judy Ct
W Mary Ave
W Harter Ave S Savannah St
S Peppertree Ct
W Paradise Ave
W La Vida Dr
SW Cottonwood Cir
S Aspen Ct
S Augusta St
W Sunnyside Dr
Rd 92
W Cambridge Ave
S Peppertree St
S Augusta Ct
W Mary Ct
W Monte Verde Ave
S El Cajon Ct
W Vassar Ave
W Country Ave
W Laura Ave
S Anthony Ct
W Evergreen Ave
S Tamarack St
W Feemster Ct
W Cherry Ave
W Dartmouth Ave
W Laura Ct
W Harter Ct
S Cottonwood Ct
W Seeger Ct
S Tommy Ct
S Tamarack Ct
W Harter Ave
S Peppertree St
S Tamarack St
W Judy Ct
W Mary Ave
W Walnut Ave
S Shirk Rd
Private St
W Vassar Ave
S Teddy St
EVANS
WATSON
S FORK PERSIAN
Vicinity Map
Mooney
Demaree
Houston
Main
Goshen
Caldwell Akers
Hwy 99
Hwy 198
Walnut
Shirk
Pla za
Noble AP Airport
QP Quasi-Public
R-1-20 Single-family Residenital
.
R-1-5 Single-family Residenital
R-M-2 Multi-family Residenital
County Areas
WATERWAYS
0100200400
Feet
Aerial Photo
S Shirk Rd
S Roeben St
Ave 280 W Caldwell AveRd 96
S Aspen St
S Shirk St
W Walnut Ave
S Jacques St
Private St
W Whitendale Ave
W Judy Ave
S Teddy St
W Lisendra Dr
W Judy Ct
W Mary Ave
W Harter Ave
Rd 92
S Savannah St
S Peppertree Ct
W Paradise Ave
W La Vida Dr
SW Cottonwood Cir
S Aspen Ct
S Augusta St
W Sunnyside Dr
W Cambridge Ave
S Peppertree St
S Augusta Ct
W Mary Ct
W Monte Verde Ave
S El Cajon Ct
W Vassar Ave
S Anthony Ct
W Evergreen Ave
W Feemster Ct
W Cherry Ave
W Dartmouth Ave
W Laura Ct
W Country Ct
S Cottonwood Ct
W Seeger Ct
W Ashland Ct
S Tommy Ct
W Laura Ct
W Judy Ct
W Seeger Ct
S Shirk Rd
W Walnut Ave
W Mary Ave
Private St
W Vassar Ave
S Teddy St S Teddy St
EVANS
WATSON
S FORK PERSIAN
Vicinity Map
Mooney
Demaree
Main
Akers
Shirk
Caldwell
Mineral King
Hwy 198
Walnut
Noble
Plaza
Hwy 99
.
100 020400
Feet
Location Map
S Akers St
S Roeben St
Ave 280 W Caldwell Ave Rd 92 S Shirk Rd
W Tulare Ave
W Walnut Ave
Rd 96
W Whitendale Ave
S Aspen St
S Shirk St
Aviation Dr
S Jacques St
Private St
S Crenshaw St
W Wagner Ave
S Teddy St
W Lisendra Dr
W Judy Ct
W Tempe Ave
W Mary Ave
W Rialto Ct
W Howard Ct
W Harter Ave S Savannah St
S Aspen Ct
W Judy Ave
W Redding Ave
W Concord Ave
W Elkhorn Ave
S Peppertree St
S Crenshaw Ct
S Augusta Ct
W Dorothea Ave
W Country Ave
W Ashland Ct
W Iris Ct
W La Vida Ave
W Nellis Ct
W Mary Ct
S Maselli St
W Wagner Ct
S Avocado St
S El Cajon Ct
W Beech Ct
S Parkwood St
W Evergreen Ave
S Tamarack St
W Cherry Ave
W Laura Ct
W Harter Ct
Private St
S Teddy St
S Shirk Rd
W Cherry Ave
W Harter Ave
S Maselli St
W Mary Ave
W Walnut Ave
W Iris Ct
EVANS
WATSON
PERSIAN
S FORK PERSIAN
DITCH
N. Fork PERSIAN
Vicinity Map
Mooney
Demaree
Houston
Main
Walnut
Goshen
Caldwell
Court
Akers
Hwy 99
Hwy 198
Shirk
Plaza
Noble
.