Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
Visalia City Council
Visalia City Council
Meeting Agenda - Final
Mayor Brian Poochigian
Vice Mayor Brett Taylor
Council Member Steve Nelsen
Council Member Emmanuel Hernandez Soto
Council Member Liz Wynn
Monday, November 18, 2024 7:00 PM City Council Chambers
ROLL CALL
CALL TO ORDER REGULAR SESSION - 7:00 PM
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INVOCATION
SPECIAL PRESENTATION / RECOGNITION
PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time for people to comment on matters within the jurisdiction of the Visalia City Council. The Council asks that you keep your comments brief and positive. Creative criticism, presented with appropriate courtesy, is welcome.
This is the opportunity to address the Council on any matter of interest, whether on the agenda or not, other than the Consent Calendar.
People may comment one time during the evening for up to three minutes unless additional time is authorized by the Council. Each speaker will be allowed three minutes, and a timer will notify you when your time is expired. Please begin your comments by stating and spelling your name and providing your city of residence.
ITEMS OF INTEREST
CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these matters unless a request is made by a City Council Member and then the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar to be discussed and voted upon by a separate motion
1. Authorization to read ordinances by title only. 24-0034
1 Visalia City Council Meeting Agenda - Final November 18, 2024
2. Construction Management Contract for Fire Station 51 - Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Griffin Structures, Inc., for construction management services for Fire Station 51.
24-0446
3. Contract Approval - Authorization to enter into a five-year contract with Benefit Coordinators Corporation as the third-party administrator of the City’s Health Benefits Programs.
24-0449
4. Notice of Completion for the FY23-24 Reclamite Project - Authorize the City Manager to file a Notice of Completion for the FY 23-24 Reclamite Project.
24-0456
5. Award a Contract for Walnut Orchard Demolition and Removal and Appropriation of Funds - Award a contract to JFS
Enterprises for Walnut Orchard Demolition and Removal in the amount of $495,000 to demolish and remove 130 acres of Walnut Orchards surrounding the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF), and appropriate $550,000 from the Wastewater Fund.
24-0463
6. Award a Contract for Biosolids Hauling - Authorize the City Manager to award an annual contract to Romanazzi Trucking for the hauling of biosolids from the Visalia Water Reclamation Facility not to exceed $170,000 per year, with an option to renew annually up to four (4) additional one-year terms, totaling no more than $850,000 over the life of the contract.
24-0469
7. Environmental Determination - Adopt Resolution No. 2024-63 adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-56 prepared for the California Department of Water Resources, Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Implementation Grant, Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project (Resolution No. 2024-63 required). 24-0471
8. Approval of Agricultural Conservation Easement Form - A request by Great Valley Land Trust to have their agricultural conservation easement form and content approved as required per the City's adopted Agricultural Preservation Ordinance. 24-0473
9. Award Construction and Construction Management ContractAuthorize the City Manager to award the construction contract for the Caldwell Avenue Widening Project from Santa Fe Street to Lovers Lane to Avison Construction, Inc. in the amount of $14,741,768 and execute an agreement with Vanir Construction Management, Inc. to provide the construction management services for the Caldwell Avenue Widening Project from Santa Fe Street to Lovers Lane in the amount of $480,090.
24-0474
2 Visalia City Council Meeting Agenda - Final November 18, 2024
10. Record Final Parcel Map - A request to record the final parcel map for Tentative Parcel Map No. 2024-02, subdividing a
3.869-acre parcel near the southeast corner of S Chinowth Street and W Caldwell Avenue into two parcels for commercial use. 24-0475
11. Record Final Parcel Map - Request authorization to record the final parcel map for Tentative Parcel Map No. 2021-06, located at 4234 South Demaree Street.
24-0476
12. Accept Grant For Animal Reunification - Authorize the City Council to accept and appropriate a $5,000.00 grant from Best Friends Animal Society and authorize the City Manager to designate the Animal Services Manager to execute the Best Friends Grant Agreement for the use of funding additional efforts to reunite owners with their pets and support our foster program. 24-0478
13. Award Park Project - Authorize the City Manager to Award Resurface Basketball Courts at Village Park to Juarez Brothers General Engineering for an amount not to exceed of $168,042.00. 24-0479
14. Award a contract to supply, deliver, and replace siloxane removal media - Authorize the City Manager to award an annual sole source contract to Unison Solutions to supply, deliver, and replace granular media used for the removal of siloxane compounds created from bio-gas produced at the City’s Water Reclamation Facility (WRF), not to exceed $245,000 per year, with an option to renew annually up to four 1-year terms, totaling no more than $1,225,000 over the life of the contract; and appropriate an additional $125,000 for FY24/25 and $125,000 for FY 25/26 from the WRF Fund.
24-0480
15. Fire Department Grant Application Authorization - Authorize staff to apply for the 2025 State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) for the purchase of one set of battery powered extrication tools in the amount of $63,643.39, to accept the grant, and to appropriate $63,643.39 if the grant is awarded.
24-0481
16. Approve Agreements for the 2024-2025 Land Fallowing Program - Authorize the City Manager to sign the Greater Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GKGSA) 2024-2025 Pilot Fallowing Program contracts for a combined 138.91 field acres in the total amount of $69,455 to be paid to the City of Visalia. 24-0482
17. Fire Department Hazmat MOU Extension w/ Amendments - Authorize the City Manager to execute the amendment and extension of the Tulare & Kings County Interagency Hazardous Materials (Hazmat) Team Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). 24-0483
3 Visalia City Council Meeting Agenda - Final November 18, 2024
18. Award Park Booster Pump Project - Authorize the City Manager to Award a Park Booster Pump Installation Project to Quality Landscape Construction Inc, for an amount not to exceed of $434,830.00.
24-0485
19. Award Contract for Elevator Repair - Authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with TK Elevator Corporation for $804,013.00 for the modernization of elevators within both parking structures and Fire Station 52.
24-0486
20. Award a sole source contract for ferric chloride - Authorize the City Manager to award a 1-year sole source contract to Pencco, Inc. for the supply of ferric chloride to the Water Reclamation Facility) for an amount not to exceed $125,000.
24-0489
21. Ordinance Adoption - Second reading and adoption of Ordinance 2024-11 amending Visalia Municipal Code Section 12.48 regarding Special Events.
24-0490
22. Authorize Agreement for Cybersecurity Assessment and Cyber Resilience Program - Authorize the City Manager to enter into a one-time service agreement with Global Solutions Group for a comprehensive Cybersecurity Assessment, Cyber Resilience Program, and Implementation Plan, for a total of $174,036. 24-0491
23. Award of Landscape Maintenance Contract - Authorize the City Manager to Award annual contract for Landscape Maintenance of Landscape and Lighting Districts within Quadrant H to Perfect Care Landscape and Maintenance for an annual amount not to exceed amount of $162,638.
24-0493
24. Authorization of Senate Bill 125 Transit Funding Agreements - Authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to sign the SB 125 Program Cooperative Agreement between the City and the Tulare County Association of Governments to receive SB 125 State Transit funding.
24-0497
25. Accept the City of Visalia Cash and Investment Report for the first quarter of the fiscal year which consists of months July, August, and September of 2024.
24-0498
26. Authorize the one-time purchase of UPS (Uninterruptible Power Supply) Systems - Authorize the City Manager to enter into a one-time purchase agreement for Uninterruptible Power Supply systems including hardware, central management, monitoring and reporting with GigaKOM for a total of $190,207.
24-0502
REGULAR ITEMS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
4 Visalia City Council Meeting Agenda - Final November 18, 2024 Comments related to regular Items and Public Hearing Items are limited to three minutes per speaker, for a maximum of 30 minutes per item. The Mayor may reasonably limit or extend the public comment period to preserve the Council's interest in conducting efficient, orderly meetings.
1. Ordinance Adoption - A Public Hearing and Introduction of the first reading of Ordinance No. 2024-12 for Zoning Text Amendment No. 2024-04: A request by the City of Visalia to amend Visalia Municipal Code Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance), Chapter 17.32.166 Short-Term Rentals, Citywide.
24-0472
2. Appeal - A Public Hearing to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2024-17: A request by Derek Finnegan / Lars Anderson & Associates to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-31, for the establishment of a 172,000 square foot commercial building for the sale of general retail merchandise with a fuel dispensing service station and a car wash, within the Commons at Visalia Parkway Shopping Center, located in the C-R (Regional Commercial) Zone. The project site is located on the southwest corner of South Mooney Boulevard and West Visalia Parkway (APNs: 121-620-004, 005, 006, 007, 008, 013, 014).
24-0505
CLOSED SESSION REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
UPCOMING CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
1. Upcoming City Council Meetings
Tuesday, December 3, 2024 @ 7:00 p.m. at 707 W. Acequia Wednesday, December 11, 2024 @ 5:30 p.m. at 707 W. Acequia Monday, December 16, 2024 @ 7:00 p.m. at 707 W. Acequia Note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change, check posted agenda for correct details. In compliance with the American Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in meetings contact 713-4512.
Written materials relating to an item on this agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda are available for public inspection in the Office of the City Clerk, 220 N. Santa Fe Street, Visalia CA 93292, during normal business hours.
24-0206
5 Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 24-0034 Agenda Date: 11/18/2024 Agenda #: 1.
Agenda Item Wording:
Authorization to read ordinances by title only.
Visalia City Council Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/15/2024
powered by Legistar™ 6
Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 24-0446 Agenda Date: 11/18/2024 Agenda #: 2.
Agenda Item Wording:
Construction Management Contract for Fire Station 51 - Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Griffin Structures, Inc., for construction management services for Fire Station 51.
Deadline for Action: 11/18/2024
Submitting Department: Community Development
Contact Name and Phone Number:
Mike Porter, Civil Engineer, [email protected] (559) 713-4412 Chris Crawford, City Engineer, [email protected] (559) 713-4331 Jason Huckleberry, Engineering & Building Director, [email protected] (559) 713-4495
Department Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Griffin Structures, Inc., for construction management services for Fire Station 51 in the amount of $889,000.
Background Discussion:
The City’s Consultant Selection Committee was tasked with selecting the most qualified consultant to provide construction management (CM) services for the construction of Fire Station 51 (FS 51). The selection committee was comprised of an interdepartmental team of employees from the Fire Department and the Engineering & Building Department. The selection committee followed the evaluation process as stated in the City’s Request for Proposal 23-24-25 (RFP). The City received proposals from the following four (4) consultants:
Griffin Structures Irvine, CA
Vanir Fresno, CA
Klassen Corporation Bakersfield CA
Cumming Group Los Angeles, CA
The committee carefully reviewed and rated all written proposals in accordance with grading criteria contained in the advertised RFP. The committee then invited the top two proposal teams (Griffin and Vanir) to participate in in-person interviews. Members of the selection committee agreed that Griffin demonstrated the highest level of expertise in the critical areas listed in the RFP. The City’s consultant selection committee is recommending Griffin as the most qualified proposer to provide construction management services for FS 51. The committee’s recommendation is based upon a careful evaluation of Griffin’s written proposal, in-person interview, and the team’s depth of directly related experience. Specifically, the Griffin team’s recent experience includes fire stations in Buena Park, Carlsbad, Cathedral City, Eastvale, and Manhattan Beach, to name a few. Griffin has also successfully provided CM services for the Visalia Emergency Communications Center and is Visalia City Council Page 1 of 3 Printed on 11/15/2024
powered by Legistar™ 7
File #: 24-0446 Agenda Date: 11/18/2024 Agenda #: 2.
currently the CM consultant for Phase 2 of the Civic Center project. Griffin has provided an extensive list of additional references for public works projects and has experience working directly with the City’s architect and engineering team.
The project is currently in the early design phase of the project. Griffin (if awarded) will participate in the early design stages of the project and assist in identifying creative design alternatives and value saving opportunities where applicable. Some examples of preconstruction services include review of existing documents, preparing site plan review documents, utility coordination, development of project document handling procedures, review of schematic design and design development phase documents, creating and managing the contractor submittal logs, tracking and coordinating contractor and supplier requests for information (RFIs), assisting with bid opening and providing bid analyses and preparing an Independent Opinion of Probable Construction Costs During construction of the fire station Griffin will provide general project administration, review and process contractor progress payments, conduct weekly construction meetings, develop weekly and monthly progress reports, provide daily full-time on-site project inspection and management of the job site, coordinate and process potential change orders and change order requests. The CM is also responsible for assisting with the preparation of record drawings at the end of the project, providing any required start-up and commissioning support, and supervising punch list completion and establishing maintenance and warranty logs.
Fiscal Impact:
1410-72000/CP0415-999. The project currently has $4,400,000 budgeted from the Measure N Fund (141). The current project budget is sufficient to cover the cost of the design phase of the project and the cost of the construction management contract. Additional funds will be required to complete the construction phase of the project. These additional funds will be requested at the time of award of the construction contract, and after approval from the Measure N committee.
Budget Summary:
Project Funding
Available CIP Funding $4,400,000
Estimated Project Costs:
Estimated Construction Costs $16,200,000
Architect/Engineer (actual cost) $794,787
Construction Manager (actual cost) $889,000
Surveying (1%) $121,000
City Staff Time (2%) $242,000
Construction Contingency (10%) $1,210,000
Inspection/Testing (2%) $242,000
Permits/Fees (2%) $242,000
Total estimated Project Costs $19,940,787
Total Estimated Deficit ($15,440,787)
Visalia City Council Page 2 of 3 Printed on 11/15/2024
powered by Legistar™ 8
File #: 24-0446 Agenda Date: 11/18/2024 Agenda #: 2.
Prior Council Action: November 6, 2023
Council authorized the City Manager to enter into a contract with RRM Design Group for A/E services for design of FS 51.
Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):
I move to authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Griffin Structures, Inc. for construction management services in the amount of $889,000.
Environmental Assessment Status: N/A
CEQA Review: N/A
Attachments:
Griffin Proposal
Ownership Disclosure
Visalia City Council Page 3 of 3 Printed on 11/15/2024
powered by Legistar™ 9
GRIFFIN STRUCTURES FEE PROPOSAL
City of Visalia Fire Station 51 Project
October 5th, 2024
Griffin Structures’ Fee Proposal is based on all reasonable costs necessary to perform Construction Management Services for the Visalia Fire Station 51 project. For these requisite services Griffin Structures proposes the following Not-to-Exceed Fee:
Owner’s Representative & Project Management Services: $ 857,505 Reimbursable Expenses: $ 31,495
Total $ 889,000
All proposed hourly rates are fully burdened and include overhead, profit, taxes, and benefits. The hours identified for each individual employee and task are estimates only and are not to be construed as not to exceed hours for any individual task, phase, or time period. We reserve the right to reallocate hours between staff members and tasks, in consultation with SupplyBank staff, in order to accomplish the overall objectives and requirements of the project.
APPROACH TO PROJECT SCHEDULE
This proposal assumes the following durations by phase as illustrated in the Resource Allocation Schedule attached:
1. Preconstruction & Procurement: November 2024 through May 2025 (7 months)
2. Contractor Bidding: June 2025 through August 2025 (3 months)
3. Construction & Closeout: September 2025 through February 2027 (18 months)
APPROACH TO STAFFING & PROJECT TEAM
To bring the highest level of efficiency and value to the City, Griffin Structures has assembled following team:
Jon Hughes – President, has extensive experience in managing public safety facilities. In this role, Jon will help guide the team in the use of pre-engineered metal building procurement and design for a successful and cost-efficient delivery. For this level of service, we have allocated 46 hours of Jon’s time AT NO COST, for a total VALUE ADD of $13,160.
Robert Godfrey – Principal In Charge, has been successfully delivering complex projects to the public sector for over 20 years. His vast experience with multiple funding sources, extensive stakeholder coordination, complex underground and utility experience, and innovative project delivery methods will ensure the project unfolds in an efficient and orderly manner. For this level of service, we have allocated 92 hours of Robert’s time.
10
Ken Aspis – Project Executive, will serve as the Project Executive and will bring a wide array of skillsets and expertise to lead this team on a day to basis. In this role, Ken will bring his understanding of City staff functions and priorities and will lead the effort through the preconstruction phase. For this level of service, we have allocated 276 hours of Ken’s time.
Robert Carnes (Alt. Hernan Munayco) – Construction Manager will provide day to day onsite Construction Management for the duration of construction and closeout. Rob will bring his expertise of Visalia, having served in a similar role on the Visalia Emergency Communications Center project. In this capacity Rob will provide the scope of services illustrated in this response. For this level of service, we have allocated 3,099 hours of Construction Management time.
QUALIFICATIONS & EXCLUSIONS
1. Listed hourly rates are for 2025. Total fee proposal includes hourly rate increases for the Project Executive and Principal in Charge at subsequent calendar years through February 28, 2027. The Construction Manager rate of $245 will remain fixed through February 28, 2027. Should the project extend beyond this date, new rates will be negotiated in good faith with the City.
2. Insurance costs are included as a reimbursable expense and will be billed monthly at the rate of $10 per $1,000.
3. On-site trailer rental, furniture, utilities, and sanitary facilities for our field staff (Project Management team) are excluded. We assume that offices will be provided as part of the construction site trailer(s) being provided by the City or its contractor.
4. Costs for all permits required for the project are excluded. It is assumed that the City will pay for all permitting fees, assessments, easements, school fees, and other agency or governmental fees or costs to support the design and construction of the project. We have not included any permit related fees within our fee proposal. Permits will be pulled by others.
5. Costs for construction staking, environmental and hazardous materials surveys, and all environmental and hazardous materials transportation and remediation costs are excluded.
6. Software licenses or user fees and all software training costs for specific project management software being required by either the SBO or their contractor(s) are excluded.
7. Cost of bulk blueprinting for plans and specifications for use by the contractors and subcontractors is excluded. Funds included in reimbursable expenses are for Griffin printing costs alone.
8. Independent or third-party testing companies such as Roofing, Peer Reviews, LEED, or other specialized third-party oversight services other than those listed herein are excluded.
9. No FF&E or OS&E procurement is included in this proposal.
10. Construction Site Security is excluded.
11. This proposal does not include a formal independent Inspector of Record (IOR); it is assumed that any Building Department inspections will be performed by the City’s Building Department inspections staff.
12. Construction Manager will review all RFI’s, Submittals, and Substitutions only for completeness. 11
Approvals shall be executed by the architect of record.
13. Statement of Probable Costs when included, and are based on standard industry practice, professional experience, and knowledge of market conditions. Griffin has no control over material and labor costs, contractor’s methods of establishing prices or the market and bidding conditions at the time of bid. Therefore, Griffin does not guarantee that bids received will not vary from the cost estimate provided and Griffin is not liable for any costs, liabilities, or damages incurred by the Agency arising from Griffin’s opinion of cost, the actual project cost to the Agency, delays caused by events outside the control of Griffin, or any labor or material cost increases.
14. Griffin is not responsible for, and the City will hold Griffin harmless from, any schedule delays and/or any losses, damages, or liabilities resulting therefrom that are caused by (1) events or conditions that are outside of Griffin’s control or (2) the acts or omissions of parties for whom Griffin is not legally liable (collectively, “Non-Consultant Delays”). The schedule for completion will be extended for any Non-Consultant Delays. If Griffin incurs additional costs or expenses due to Non-Consultant Delays, then Griffin’s fee compensation will be equitably adjusted to cover such additional costs or expenses.
15. Wage Compliance Program including Certified Payroll auditing, field interviews, or reporting is excluded. Based on State Law SB 854, it is assumed that the Dept. of Industrial Relations (DIR) will manage this effort at the State level. Griffin will enforce the Contractor registration requirements stipulated by the DIR.
16. For document tracking control, Griffin has included the use of “Submittal Exchange” for managing construction documentation, and based the hours allocated in this proposal accordingly. The cost of “Submittal Exchange” is included here as a reimbursable expense.
17. Move management services are not included.
18. Commissioning requirements required by LEED or Cal Green (Title 24) are excluded. Griffin will manage the commissioning process, but we have not included a commissioning agent, nor development of commissioning specifications.
19. This proposal shall remain valid and in full force and effect for a period of 120 days from date of issuance, after which time it shall be deemed null and void. 12 PRESIDENT PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE PROJECT EXECUTIVE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER Jon Hughes Robert Godfrey Ken Aspis Rob Carnes
$280/hr.* $270/hr.* $260/hr.* $245/hr.*
Griffin has revised this propsal to reflect the scope and fee as discussed in a meeting with City staff on 09/05/2024
1 PHASE 1 - PRE-BID SERVICES 8 16 90 40
1.1 Project Kick Off Meeting Incl Incl Incl Incl
1.2 Review Existing Documents Incl Incl Incl Incl
1.3 Constructability Reviews at Design Development and Construction Documents Incl Incl Incl Incl
1.4 Contractor Submittal Log Incl Incl Incl Incl
2 PHASE 2 - BIDDING PHASE SERVICES 2 4 45 90
2.1 Assist City with Notice of Award Incl Incl Incl Incl
2.2 Chair Preconstruction Meeting Incl Incl Incl Incl
3 PHASE 3: CONSTRUCTION & CLOSEOUT 36 72 141 2969
3.1 Mobilization Incl incl Incl Incl
3.2 Project Controls and General Administration Incl Incl Incl Incl
3.3 CM Project Invoices Incl Incl Incl Incl
3.4 Processing Progress Payments Incl Incl Incl Incl
3.5 Communications and Coordination Incl Incl Incl Incl
3.6 Onsite Inspection and Photo Documentation Incl Incl Incl Incl
3.7 Submittal Review and Management Incl Incl Incl Incl
3.8 Requests for Information Management Incl Incl Incl Incl
3.9 Change Order Management Incl Incl Incl Incl
3.10 Claims Review and Analysis Incl Incl Incl Incl
3.11 Inspection and Observation Services Incl Incl Incl Incl
3.12 Record Drawings Incl Incl Incl Incl
3.13 Start Up and Commissioning Support Incl Incl Incl Incl
3.14 Project Closeout Services Incl Incl Incl Incl
Total Hours 46 92 276 3099
Subtotals $13,160 $25,400 $72,850 $759,255
PROJECT / CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT TOTAL NO CHARGE $857,505 4 REIMBURSABLE COSTS $31,495
4.1 Insurance $8,495
4.2 Misc. Printing and Office Supplies $3,000
4.3 Submittal Exchange $20,000
GRAND TOTAL $889,000
Item
No.
PROJECT PHASE
13 City of Visalia
Fire Station 51
Resource Allocation Schedule
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
PHASE 1 - PRE-BID SERVICES
Design Development
Constructability Review of Design Development
Construction Documents
Constructability Review 2 and Permitting
PHASE 2 - BIDDING PHASE SERVICES
Prebid Meeting
Contractor Bid Period
Bid Opening and Award
PHASE 3 - CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES
Contracts and Insurance
Construction
Punch List & Commissioning
Move In
Final Project Closeout
President - Jon Hughes 4 4 2 2 2 2 2
Principal In Charge - Robert Godfrey 8 8 4 4 4 4 4
Project Executive - Ken Aspis 45 45 45 8 8 8 8
Construction Manager - Robert Carnes 20 20 90 172 172 172 172 President - Jon Hughes $ - $ 1,120 $ - $ - $ 1,120 $ - $ - $ 560 $ 560 $ 560 $ 560 $ 560 Principal In Charge - Robert Godfrey $ - $ 2,160 $ - $ - $ 2,160 $ - $ - $ 1,080 $ 1,080 $ 1,080 $ 1,080 $ 1,080 Project Executive - Ken Aspis $ - $ 11,700 $ - $ - $ 11,700 $ - $ - $ 11,700 $ 2,080 $ 2,080 $ 2,080 $ 2,080 Construction Manager - Robert Carnes $ - $ 4,900 $ - $ - $ 4,900 $ - $ - $ 22,050 $ 42,140 $ 42,140 $ 42,140 $ 42,140 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ 18,760 $ - $ - $ 18,760 $ - $ - $ 34,830 $ 45,300 $ 45,300 $ 45,300 $ 45,300 WEEKS
PROJECT PHASE
2025
14 City of Visalia
Fire Station 51
Resource Allocation Schedule
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB PHASE 1 - PRE-BID SERVICES
Project Initiation and Analysis
Review Existing Documents
Schematic Design & Pre-fab Feasibility Analysis
Indpendent Opinion of Probable Cost
Design Development
City Review of Design Development
Construction Documents
Permitting and Final Bid Documents
PHASE 2 - BIDDING PHASE SERVICES
Prebid Meeting
Contractor Bid Period
Bid Opening and Award
PHASE 3 - CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES
Mobilization
Construction
Punch List & Commissioning
Move In
Final Project Closeout
WEEKS Totals
President - Jon Hughes 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 46
Principal In Charge - Robert Godfrey 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 92 Project Executive - Ken Aspis 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 5 276 Construction Manager - Robert Carnes 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 45 3,099 President - Jon Hughes $ 580 $ 580 $ 580 $ 580 $ 580 $ 580 $ 580 $ 580 $ 580 $ 580 $ 580 $ 580 $ 580 $ 580 $ 13,160 Principal In Charge - Robert Godfrey $ 1,120 $ 1,120 $ 1,120 $ 1,120 $ 1,120 $ 1,120 $ 1,120 $ 1,120 $ 1,120 $ 1,120 $ 1,120 $ 1,120 $ 1,120 $ 1,120 $ 25,400 Project Executive - Ken Aspis $ 2,160 $ 2,160 $ 2,160 $ 2,160 $ 2,160 $ 2,160 $ 2,160 $ 2,160 $ 2,160 $ 2,160 $ 2,160 $ 2,160 $ 2,160 $ 1,350 $ 72,850 Construction Manager - Robert Carnes $ 42,140 $ 42,140 $ 42,140 $ 42,140 $ 42,140 $ 42,140 $ 42,140 $ 42,140 $ 42,140 $ 42,140 $ 42,140 $ 42,140 $ 42,140 $ 11,025 $ 759,255 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 45,420 $ 45,420 $ 45,420 $ 45,420 $ 45,420 $ 45,420 $ 45,420 $ 45,420 $ 45,420 $ 45,420 $ 45,420 $ 45,420 $ 45,420 $ 13,495 $ 857,505 2027
PROJECT PHASE
2026
15 RFP 23-24-25
CM Services for Visalia Fire Station 51
Attachment E
Submit with Proposal
OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FOR CONTRACTORS AND CONSULTANTS
NAMES OF PRINCIPALS, PARTNERS AND.OR TRUSTEES
Firm Name:
Firm Address:
List the names of all principals, partners and/or trustees. For corporations provide names of officers, directors and all stockholders owning more than 10% equity interest in corporation:
Submitted by:
Date:
16 Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 24-0449 Agenda Date: 11/18/2024 Agenda #: 3.
Agenda Item Wording:
Contract Approval - Authorization to enter into a five-year contract with Benefit Coordinators Corporation as the third-party administrator of the City’s Health Benefits Programs.
Deadline for Action: 11/18/2024
Submitting Department: Administration
Contact Name and Phone Number: Andrew Guzman, Risk Manager, (559) 713-4335 Department Recommendation:
Authorize staff to enter into an agreement with Benefits Coordinators Corporation (BCC) as the thirdparty administrator of the City’s Health Benefit Programs, effective January 1, 2025. This agreement will be for a five-year term for an amount not to exceed the following:
Year 1 - $15.5 million
Year 2 - $16.2 million
Year 3 - $17.0 million
Year 4 - $17.8 million
Year 5 - $18.7 million
Background Discussion:
On January 1, 2005, the City of Visalia joined the PRISMHealth Program, a risk-sharing pool for health benefits. PRISMHealth requires its members to use one of their authorized Benefits Administrators, and at the time of joining the pool, Workterra was the only option. Workterra’s responsibilities include administration of benefits enrollment, consolidated billing for the Medical, Dental, and Vision benefits, Retiree Health premium billing, and Affordable Care Act tracking and reporting for compliance purposes.
On May 22, 2024, the PRISMHealth Committee voted to terminate PRISMHealth’s contract with Workterra, effective December 31, 2025. All members utilizing Workterra for admin services, including the City of Visalia, must transition to another approved PRISMHealth benefits administrator by October 1, 2025. The City’s transition will be effective January 1, 2025.
Benefit Coordinators Corporation (BCC), BRMS, and Businessolver are available administrators for the PRISMHealth Program. Risk Management reviewed the three vendors and identified BCC as the best fit for the City. Risk Management reviewed the following areas of the three vendors: Fixed Costs, administration costs, review of the benefits administration system, and the opportunity to administer additional programs for current and future years to improve ease of administration and streamlined billing.
Visalia City Council Page 1 of 3 Printed on 11/13/2024
powered by Legistar™ 17
File #: 24-0449 Agenda Date: 11/18/2024 Agenda #: 3.
Cost Comparison by Categories:
· Fixed Cost: BCC has the lowest fixed cost at $7.00 per employee per month (PEPM), Businessolver is the next lowest at $7.05 PEPM, and BRMS is the most expensive at $7.50 PEPM. The Fixed Cost is a fee that is bundled with our medical premium. In the BCC System & Service Fees attachment, the items that indicate “Included in PRISM Medical Program Fees” are paid for by the Fixed Cost.
· Administration Costs: BCC has the lowest overall costs of the three vendors. The benefit administration fee is $0.50 per employee per month (PEPM), the same cost that Workterra is billing now. BCC also collects the following administration fees for · $1.35 PEPM for Dental program eligibility and billing, Approximately $10,044 per year · $1.35 PEPM for Vision program eligibility and billing. This is a reduction from Workterra’s $3.62 PEPM fee. Approximately $10,044 per year. · Affordable Care Act Compliance Fees - Approximately $9,800 per year · Benefits Administration System: Businessolver and BRMS have feature-rich benefit administration systems, and BCC uses the same platform as our current administrator. The City would have to pay for the enhanced features of the Businessolver and BRMS systems, such as health plan selection tools and enhanced reporting. These enhanced features are not needed for the City and would most likely not be utilized.
All three vendors would be able to implement additional programs for ease of administration and billing.
BCC has been identified as the best vendor to fit the City’s needs for the following reasons:
· The benefit administration system is the same system currently being used, which will simplify the transition and require less training from city staff. · BCC’s system would allow self-service options for city employees to make their benefit elections during Open Enrollment, their New Hire benefit election period, and during Qualifying Life Events.
· Consolidated billing: Workterra handles Medical, Dental, and Vision eligibility. BCC would continue to administer and consolidate billing for these programs, and also administer the City’s Life and Disability benefits. BCC would be able to administer the City’s Flexible Spending Accounts, Health Savings Accounts, Ancillary Benefits such as Accident and Critical Illness, and Employee Assistance Plan in future years.
· Retiree Billing for health premiums would be billed and administered by BCC. BCC has provided an overview of the transition process to ensure a seamless transition for retirees participating in our health program.
· BCC will continue to track and report on the Affordable Care Act for Federal and State compliance.
Fiscal Impact:
The total annual payments to BCC for administration would be the following:
Year 1, 1/1/2025 - 12/31/2025: $35,335.50
Year 2, 1/1/2026 - 12/31/2026: $33,790.50
Year 3, 1/1/2027 - 12/31/2027: $33,790.50
Year 4, 1/1/2028 - 12/31/2028: $33,790.50
Visalia City Council Page 2 of 3 Printed on 11/13/2024
powered by Legistar™ 18
File #: 24-0449 Agenda Date: 11/18/2024 Agenda #: 3.
Year 5, 1/1/2029 - 12/31/2029: $33,790.50
The first year’s cost is $1,545 more than years 2-5 due to a one-time set up charge.
BCC will also be paying the City’s consolidated health premium invoices for medical, dental, vision, life insurance, and disability insurance on the City’s behalf. These payments, will be a pass-through from BCC to our benefit programs. Pass-through premiums will fluctuate each year based on benefit plan renewals. The estimated costs include a 5% increase each year to Medical, Life, and Disability plans to account for trends in benefit premium renewals. Dental and Vision premiums are steady because the City pays the actual cost of claims, which typically have a flat trend.
Below is the estimated total annual payments to BCC, which includes administration costs plus passthrough premiums for the City’s benefit programs. The attachment titled Estimated Annual Payments - BCC provides a more detailed breakdown of the total estimated payments.
Total annual payments to BCC with pass-through premiums:
Year 1, 1/1/2025 - 12/31/2025: $15,471,917.50
Year 2, 1/1/2026 - 12/31/2026: $16,208,687.10
Year 3, 1/1/2027 - 12/31/2027: $16,983,917.43
Year 4, 1/1/2028 - 12/31/2028: $17,797,909.28
Year 5, 1/1/2029 - 12/31/2029: $18,652,600.72
These are not new fees to the City and would have been paid to Workterra had their contract not been terminated with our health program. The first invoice from BCC will be generated in December 2024 for January 2025 health premiums.
Prior Council Action: None.
Other: None
Alternatives: None.
Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):
I move to approve staff to enter in a 5-year contract with Benefit Coordinators Corporation (BCC) as the third-party administrator for the health program provided by participation in the PRISMHealth Program and to authorize BCC to assume the consolidated billing responsibilities from Workterra, effective January 1, 2025, subject to City Attorney review and approval.
Environmental Assessment Status: N/A
CEQA Review: N/A
Attachments: 1) BCC System & Service Fees. 2) Estimated Annual Payments - BCC. 3) BCC Master Admin Agreement
Visalia City Council Page 3 of 3 Printed on 11/13/2024
powered by Legistar™ 19
20 21
BCC - Estimated Annual Payments
January 1, 2025 - December 31, 2029
BCC System & Service Fees Cost
PassThrough
Payment?
Annual - Year 1
1/1/2025 -
12/31/2025
Annual - Year 2
1/1/2026 -
12/31/2026
Annual - Year 3
1/1/2027 -
12/31/2027
Annual - Year 4
1/1/2028 -
12/31/2028
Annual - Year 5
1/1/2029 -
12/31/2029
Benefit Administration Fee
$0.50 Per medical enrolled
participant per month (active &
retirees) No $ 3,960.00 $ 3,960.00 $ 3,960.00 $ 3,960.00 $ 3,960.00 Dental Eligiblity Fee
$1.35 per employee per month
(active employee only) No $ 10,044.00 $ 10,044.00 $ 10,044.00 $ 10,044.00 $ 10,044.00 Vision Eligibility Fee
$1.35 per employee per month
(active & retirees) No $ 10,044.00 $ 10,044.00 $ 10,044.00 $ 10,044.00 $ 10,044.00 ACA Administration Set Up $1,545 one time cost No $ 1,545.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - ACA Ongoing Administration $590 per month No $ 7,080.00 $ 7,080.00 $ 7,080.00 $ 7,080.00 $ 7,080.00 ACA Annual Employee Statement
$2.25 per statement (approx
730) No $ 1,642.50 $ 1,642.50 $ 1,642.50 $ 1,642.50 $ 1,642.50 ACA IRS Transmittal $620 annually No $ 620.00 $ 620.00 $ 620.00 $ 620.00 $ 620.00 ACA CA Transmittal $400 annually No $ 400.00 $ 400.00 $ 400.00 $ 400.00 $ 400.00 Subtotal: $ 35,335.50 $ 33,790.50 $ 33,790.50 $ 33,790.50 $ 33,790.50 Consolidated Billing (Pass Through Premiums)
Medical Premium Yes $ 14,486,292.00 $ 15,210,606.60 $ 15,971,136.93 $ 16,769,693.78 $ 17,608,178.47 Dental Claims Yes $ 520,290.00 $ 520,290.00 $ 520,290.00 $ 520,290.00 $ 520,290.00 Vision Claims Yes $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 Life Insurance Yes $ 40,000.00 $ 42,000.00 $ 44,100.00 $ 46,305.00 $ 48,620.25 Disability Insurance Yes $ 240,000.00 $ 252,000.00 $ 264,600.00 $ 277,830.00 $ 291,721.50 Subtotal $ 15,436,582.00 $ 16,174,896.60 $ 16,950,126.93 $ 17,764,118.78 $ 18,618,810.22 Total Annual Payments BCC + Consolidated Bill: $ 15,471,917.50 $ 16,208,687.10 $ 16,983,917.43 $ 17,797,909.28 $ 18,652,600.72 Estimated Employee Count 620
Estimate Retiree Count 40
Total Main Subscriber Count 660
22 BENEFIT COORDINATORS CORPORATION (BCC) | WWW.BCCBENEFITSOLUTIONS.COM TWO ROBINSON PLAZA, STE. 200, PITTSBURGH, PA 15205 | T 412.276.1111 | F 412.276.6650
BENEFIT COORDINATORS CORPORATION
ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT
Name of Employer City of Visalia
Business Address 220 N Santa Fe St
Visalia, CA 93292
Employer’s tax identification number (EIN): 94-6000449.
In consideration of the covenants and obligations set forth herein, Self Insured Services Company LLC, doing business as, Benefit Coordinators Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Administrator”) and Employer hereby agree as follows:
SECTION I - SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED TO EMPLOYER AND ADMINISTRATOR
1.1 Administrator agrees to provide administrative services to Employer identified in the “Services Exhibit” attached to this Benefit Coordinators Corporation Plan Administration Agreement (the “Administration Agreement” or the “Agreement”), as more fully set forth in each Exhibit, and in accordance with the following terms and conditions.
1.2 Administrator shall perform the services under this Agreement (the “Services”) professionally, diligently, and in accordance with industry standards. Administrator has obtained and will maintain during the term of this Agreement, all applicable licenses, permits, approvals and certifications necessary to provide the Services and will comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations.
1.3 Employer will provide to Administrator the accurate data needed by Administrator to perform the services contemplated by this Agreement that Employer has verified and updated at routine and timely intervals.
SECTION II - ADMINISTRATION FEES
2.1 Administrator’s fees for Services in connection with the welfare benefit plans covered by this Administration Agreement (collectively the “Plans”) will be paid by Employer pursuant to the Schedule of Fees Exhibit of this Agreement. The nonrefundable Setup Fee for establishing the Services in connection with the Employer shall be due and payable upon execution of this Agreement. The Administrator’s fees will be subject to revision at the contract renewal, and any change in fees will be communicated to the Employer thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of the change. BCC reserves the right, with 30 days’ notice, to modify fees if the Employer’s employee base changes by 20% or greater percentage. Administrator will provide Employer with new Schedule of Fees Exhibit whenever services are added or deleted.
2.2 Administrator has the right to immediately terminate services under this Agreement in the event Employer fails to comply with the terms of the Fee Agreement in any material respect, including, but not limited to Employer’s failure to pay any fee of the Administrator when due. In the event of any such termination, the Administrator will notify the Employer thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of the termination. In lieu of termination, the Administrator, in its sole discretion, may offer the Employer the opportunity to continue service by paying all past due amounts along with a reinstatement fee.
2.3 Administrator may immediately terminate Services under this Agreement if Employer materially breaches the Agreement, including, but not limited to, any failure by Employer or its agents to pay any fee of the Administrator 23 2
when due. In the event of any such termination, Administrator will notify Employer prior to the effective date of termination. In lieu of termination, Administrator, in its sole discretion, may offer Employer the opportunity to continue Services upon payment of all past due and a reinstatement fee.
2.4 Employer shall reimburse Administrator for expenses incurred for the printing and postage of any material produced specifically for Employer and sent via U. S. mail to the participants, if the material is outside the scope of services listed on the Schedule of Fees and approved in advance in writing by Employer.
2.5 Employer shall reimburse the Administrator for any charges incurred due to insufficient funds, returned check fees, or other similar fees incurred through Employer’s payment of fees due to the Administrator or claims payments.
SECTION III - LIABILITY & INDEMNITY
3.1 The Administrator does not insure or underwrite Employer’s liability under the Plans. Employer retains financial and fiduciary responsibility for claims made under the Plans and for all expenses incident to the Plans, except as specifically assumed by the Administrator in this Agreement.
3.2 Employer agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Administrator, its successors and assigns, against any and all loss, damage and expense, including attorneys’ fees (collectively, a “Loss”), occasioned by claims, demands or lawsuits brought against Administrator to recover benefits under the Plans, except to the extent such Loss resulted from the fraud, negligence or willful misconduct of Administrator. This section shall not prevent Employer from pursuing a breach of contract action against the Administrator for any failure of the Administrator to properly perform its duties under this Agreement.
3.3 The right to be defended, indemnified, and held harmless extends to Administrator’s employees, their estates, executors, administrators, guardians, conservators and heirs and applies after the employee ceases employment with Administrator for acts or omissions during employment.
3.4 Employer agrees to indemnify Administrator for any charges or fees incurred or arising due to Employer’s lack of timely reporting of eligibility changes or terminations. This indemnification extends to any liability relating to the performance, or failure to perform, of any agent performing any of Employer’s duties under this Agreement, including, but not limited to, failure to deliver timely and accurate enrollment or eligibility data by any agent with which Employer has contracted to provide such data.
3.5 Employer agrees to be liable, unconditionally and without limitation, for all transactions effectuated by use of the debit card system, if applicable, whether authorized or unauthorized, whether utilized by Employees or some other person, and whether arising from lost or stolen debit cards. All Employees using the debit card system constitute third party beneficiaries of the accommodations extended herein and of the terms and conditions of this Administration Agreement. Accordingly, such Employees shall be jointly and severally liable with Employer for any transactions effectuated under the debit card system issued to the respective Employee, whether authorized or unauthorized, and whether arising from lost or stolen debit cards.
3.6 Administrator agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Employer, its successors and assigns, against any and all loss, damage and expense, including attorneys’ fees, occasioned by claims, demands or lawsuits brought against Employer relating to the performance of, or failure to perform, the responsibilities placed on Administrator by this Administration Agreement.
3.7 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. EXCEPT FOR THE INDEMNIFICATION OBLIGATIONS OUTLINED IN SECTION III ABOVE, EACH PARTY’S AGGREGATE, CUMULATIVE LIABILITY IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT SHOULD BE LIMITED
TO DIRECT DAMAGES AND CAPPED AT THE AMOUNT EQUAL TO FEES ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY ADMINISTRATOR FROM EMPLOYER UNDER THE ORDER FORM WHICH THE EVENT CAUSING LIABILITY ARISES. These limitations and exclusions apply to all claims or causes of action on whatever basis and under whatever theory brought and irrespective of whether the Party has advised or has been advised of the possibility of such claim. All claims and 24 3
causes of action brought by Employer hereunder shall be brought within ninety (90) calendar days of the termination or expiration hereof or within six (6) months of the date the harm is discovered, whichever occurs first. IN NO EVENT SHALL EITHER PARTY BE LIABLE TO THE OTHER FOR INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, RELIANCE OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES OR LOST OR IMPUTED PROFITS OR LOST DATA.
SECTION IV - TERMINATION & REVISION
4.1 The terms in this Administration Agreement are effective from the date of execution until either party terminates this Administration Agreement.
Modification. If a party desires to modify this Administration Agreement, it must notify the other party in writing at least thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of such modification or, in the event of a proposed modification due to a change in local, state, or federal law, as soon as possible. The effective date will be no sooner than the end of the coverage month following thirty (30) days from the date of notice.
4.2 Termination. Either party may terminate this Administration Agreement for any reason by sending written notice of intent to terminate at least ninety (90) days before the date of termination. Upon receipt of notice of termination by either party, Administrator must submit to Employer a timeline for disengagement of services.
A. If Employer’s desired effective date of termination is less than ninety (90) days, Employer will be responsible for any and all fees for the full ninety (90) termination period, and Employer assumes responsibility and liability for any outstanding and new errors, discrepancies and unresolved issues, even if the issue resulted from a period during which Administrator was the Administrator.
B. If Employer requires additional time to access the system beyond the termination date, a signed amendment is required prior to the termination date. Administration will grant access to Employer for fee of $500 per month. If Employer does not timely respond with aforementioned amendment and/or payment prior to the termination date, Administrator will revoke Employer’s system access and purge Employer’s data as of the date of termination. Employer will not have an ability to reactivate.
C. Except for terminations as provided in 4.4 below, upon execution of a Run-Out Agreement, Administrator will process claims and/or qualifying events incurred prior to the termination date for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days after the termination date, at the standard monthly fee.
4.3 Administrator’s obligations to employees’ and their dependents’ relevant rights to payment of benefits from the Plan will be terminated and extinguished on the effective date of termination, except as provided in Section 4.5 below.
4.4 Either party may terminate this Agreement immediately upon:
(i) the occurrence of a material breach by the other party, which material breach has not been cured within 30 days after written notice;
(ii) termination or suspension by the other party of its business; (iii) the other party becoming subject to any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding under the laws of any jurisdiction;
(iv) the other party failing to pay its debts as they become due, becoming insolvent, or becoming subject to direct control by a trustee, receiver or similar authority; or (v) the other party goes into liquidation, voluntarily or otherwise.
This Agreement may be terminated by any federal, state, municipal, local, territorial, or other governmental department, regulatory authority, judicial or administrative body, whether domestic, foreign or international with jurisdiction over the parties (“Regulator”), or by the parties at the direction of any Regulator. 25 4
4.5 In the event of termination, Administrator will cooperate fully with Employer and assist Employer in navigating the assumption of the Services by a new provider. To assist in the transition, Administrator will provide Employer or a new provider all access to records, files, including computer files (i.e., magnetic tape, disc, etc.), facilities and premises necessary for performance of the Services. Upon termination, all fees due the Administrator will be payable immediately.
4.6 If Employer terminates within twelve (12) months of the Effective Date, payment for the full initial term (twelve (12) months) will be immediately due and payable to Administrator.
4.7 If Employer terminates or provides notice of termination prior to, within and/or less than ninety (90) days after Administrator has processed or is expected to process Employer’s open enrollment, Administrator may charge a disengagement fee to recover costs associated with the open enrollment (EDI programming, system build out, etc.) process.
4.8 All terminated – related notices must be written and delivered personally or mailed via certified mail, return receipt requested. Administrator will deliver or mail notices to Employer to the address first written above.
Employer will deliver or mail notices to the Administrator to Benefit Coordinators Corporation, at Two Robinson Plaza, Suite 200, Pittsburgh, PA 15205-1324. If either party wishes to change its address for purposes of notice, it must notify the other party of the new address in writing.
SECTION V - ASSIGNMENT
5.1 Employer may not assign its rights or obligations under this Administration Agreement without the prior written consent of Administrator. Any attempted assignment, change of control, or sale of a majority of Employer’s equity or assets automatically terminates this Administration Agreement; all sums due hereunder shall be immediately due and payable. Administrator may assign this Administration Agreement without Employer’s prior consent, and Administrator’s rights, title and interest herein shall inure to the benefit of such assignee, its successors and assigns.
SECTION VI - FORCE MAJEURE
6.1 No party shall be liable or responsible for delays or errors due to circumstances beyond its reasonable control, including, but not limited to, acts of civil or military authority, national emergencies, labor difficulties, fire, mechanical breakdown, hurricane, flood or catastrophe, Acts of God, insurrection, war, riots or failure of communication or power supply.
SECTION VII - CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
7.1 The parties will maintain the confidentiality of all medical, prescription, and other patient-identifiable health information relating to claims administered under this Administration Agreement in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), as amended from time to time. The parties acknowledge that Administrator needs access to Patient Information to provide services and perform the obligations herein. The parties also acknowledge that Patient Information may be obtained from and distributed to Employer or any other third party in connection with services provided herein, including disclosures made by Administrator, such as, but not limited to, disclosures to a new vendor upon transition of services following termination of this Administration Agreement.
7.2 Certain management reports, reporting packages, utilization data, and/or claims information may contain Patient Information. Employer’s request to the Administrator to disclose Patient Information to any third party (e.g. broker, healthcare consultant, etc.) constitutes Employer’s direction and authorization to disclose such information to the third party. Administrator will disclose such information pursuant to Employer’s direction until Administrator receives written notice from Employer to cease further disclosures. Employer acknowledges HIPAA requirements and obligations regarding the disclosure of Patient Information to third parties on Employer’s behalf. Accordingly, if required, Employer agrees to enter into “Business Associate” contracts (as such term is 26 5
defined in Title 45, Section 160.103 of the Code of Federal Regulations) with such parties as well as any other agreements required by state, federal law or regulation.
SECTION VIII - MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
8.1 Benefits under the Plans covered by this Agreement are provided solely from Employer’s general assets and insurance purchased by Employer (if any). If the Plans provide for employee contributions through payroll withholding, Employer represents to the Administrator that it will comply in all material respects with the requirements of all applicable laws, including those related to trust, reporting and disclosure requirements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”).
8.2 This Administration Agreement shall be governed, construed, and enforced in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, without regard to its principles of choice of laws. Each party consents to exclusive personal jurisdiction and venue in the federal courts for the Western District of Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania or, if federal jurisdiction does not exist, in the Pennsylvania state courts in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, or in the federal or state courts in Employer’s home state with respect to any actions, claims or proceedings arising out of or in connection with this Administration Agreement. Jurisdiction and venue will be dictated by the state in which the matter is first filed – Pennsylvania or the Employer’s home state.
8.3 This is the entire agreement between the parties. No representations, understandings, or agreements exist between the parties on the subject matter of this agreement other than as set forth in this Administration Agreement.
8.4 If any provision of this Administration Agreement or application of any such provision shall be held unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Administration Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.
8.5 The failure of Administrator to enforce compliance with any terms or conditions of this Agreement, the waiver of any term or condition of this Agreement, or an extension of time for performance, shall not constitute waiver of any term or condition of this Agreement; this Agreement and its provisions shall remain at all times in full force and effect.
8.6 The Plan “Administrator” (as defined in Section 3(16)a of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) and “Named Fiduciary” (ERISA Section 402(a)(2)) of the Plan is Employer. 27 6
The undersigned warrants and represents that the undersigned has full power and authority to enter into this Agreement, to bind each Party hereto, and to grant the rights set forth herein effective as of 01/01/2025.
City of Visalia
Signature:
Printed Name:
Title:
(Authorized Officer)
Date:
Self Insured Services Company LLC dba
BENEFIT COORDINATORS CORPORATION
Signature:
Printed Name:
Title:
(Authorized Officer)
Date:
28 7
BENEFIT COORDINATORS CORPORATION
ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT
SERVICES EXHIBIT
This Exhibit is effective 01/01/2025, and continues in force until amended.
Consolidated Invoicing and Remittance
BenXcel®
Flexible Spending Administration
COBRA Administration
Retiree Billing Administration
29 8
BENEFIT COORDINATORS CORPORATION
ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT
CONSOLIDATED INVOICING EXHIBIT
Consolidated Invoicing and Remittance Services Agreement Employer appoints the Administrator to provide consolidated invoicing and remittance services (the “Services”) under Employer’s employee welfare benefit plan(s) identified below, effective Jan 1, 2025, under the following terms and conditions of this Agreement:
SECTION I - PLAN INFORMATION
1.1 Plan Name(s) City of Visalia.
SECTION II – THE ADMINISTRATOR’S RESPONSIBILITIES
2.1 Maintain eligibility for the insurance products under the Plan in accordance with carrier policies
2.2 Invoice Employer for the premium due under the various insurance products in accordance with the rates provided by the carriers
2.3 Provide the carriers with eligibility files, as may be necessary, and resolve any eligibility errors that might arise from the carriers applying the eligibility files to their respective systems
2.4 Receive premiums from Employer and remit them to the various carriers SECTION III - EMPLOYER’S RESPONSIBILITIES
3.1 Provide employee eligibility information and documentation to the Administrator on a timely basis
3.2 Review monthly invoices for errors and/or omissions, and promptly (and in no event later than 60 days) notify the Administrator of any such errors or omissions
3.3 Remit premiums to the Administrator on a timely basis
3.4 Provide timely notification of all Plan, rate and insurance carrier changes to the Administrator
SECTION IV - INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
4.1 The terms and provisions of the Administration Agreement are made a part hereof and incorporated herein by reference.
30 9
BENEFIT COORDINATORS CORPORATION
ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT
BENXCEL EXHIBIT
BenXcel Usage Agreement
By using the BenXcel online benefits administration system provided by Administrator, Employer agrees to be bound by the following terms and conditions of this BenXcel Usage Agreement:
SECTION I - GENERAL INFORMATION
1.1 The BenXcel online benefits administration system is a fully integrated web enrollment and HR administration tool, which empowers HR departments to manage all benefit administrative tasks online and in real-time.
SECTION II – THE ADMINISTRATOR’S RESPONSIBILITIES
In consideration of the fees to be paid to it, Administrator shall provide the following services:
2.1 Administrator shall provide Employer and its employees with access, via the internet, to the BenXcel online benefits administration system, in connection with the performance of services by Administrator on behalf of Employer pursuant to the administration agreements set forth on the Services Exhibit in this Administration Agreement.
2.2 Administrator shall provide demonstrations of the BenXcel online benefits administration system for the benefit of Employer and its employees, and training for administrative personnel and support services for the ongoing utilization of the system.
2.3 Administrator shall make the BenXcel online benefits administration system available on a best efforts basis.
This includes having backups of data, multiple and in most cases redundant connections to the internet, and readily available technical expertise. Administrator reserves the right to schedule periodic maintenance for the BenXcel system, including repairs, upgrades and reconfigurations. During such maintenance periods, Employer and its employees may be unable to access or use the BenXcel system.
2.4 The services provided by Administrator and the BenXcel online benefits administration system are expected to change from time to time. Administrator reserves the right to change any service offered or the features of any service offered or its system without notice, including changes to access and use procedures and system hardware and software.
2.5 Administrator has taken reasonable actions to ensure that personal information with respect to Employer and/or its employees are disclosed only to those designated by Employer. However, Employer acknowledges that the internet is an open system and Administrator cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that third parties will not intercept personal information.
2.6 Administrator has taken reasonable actions to ensure that the BenXcel online benefits administration system satisfies the requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, including but not limited to the regulations with respect to privacy and security of health information.
2.7 If the Sage Financial Wellness Tool is elected, Administrator will provide Single Sign On (SSO) access to the Sage Financial Wellness Tool for Employer’s employee population. All terms and conditions of the Sage Financial Wellness Tool and the Sage Platform are defined in the Sage Financial Wellness Platform Agreement executed between and by the Employer and Sage Financial Wellness, Inc. 31 10
SECTION III – EMPLOYER’S RESPONSIBILITIES
Employer shall:
3.1 Be responsible for any and all expenses and charges associated with accessing the internet and connecting to the website containing the BenXcel online benefits administration system, any service fees associated with such access and connection, and for providing all equipment necessary for Employer and/or its employees to make such connection, including, without limitation, computer and modem.
3.2 Employer shall be responsible for authorizing and revoking security access to its employees and/or representatives in accordance with Administrator’s security procedures. Employer shall be solely responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of accounts and passwords and for restricting access to computers of employees and/or representatives to whom Employer grants security access under the BenXcel online benefits administration system.
3.3 Employer shall be solely responsible for any and all activities which occur under accounts and passwords of employees and/or representatives to whom Employer grants security access. Employer agrees to notify Administrator immediately if Employer has any reason to believe that the security of an account has been compromised.
3.4 Employer shall be solely responsible for implementing appropriate safeguards and procedures in order to satisfy Employer’s responsibilities under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, including but not limited to the regulations with respect to administrative requirements. Employer certifies that any and all access to protected health information by employees and/or representatives to whom Employer grants security access is solely and exclusively for purposes of treatment, payment or healthcare operations, and that such access to protected health information is both permitted and satisfies the minimum necessary standard under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.
SECTION IV - INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
4.1 All content included on the BenXcel site, such as text, graphics, logos, button icons, images, audio clips, information, data, photographs, graphs, videos, typefaces, graphics, music, sounds, and other material and software (the Materials) is the property of Administrator or its content suppliers and is protected by copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, or other proprietary rights, and these rights are valid and protected in all forms, media, and technologies existing now or hereinafter developed. All such content is copyrighted as a collective work under the US copyright laws (17 U.S.C. § 101, et. seq.) and international treaty provisions, and Administrator owns a copyright in the selection, coordination, arrangement, and displayed enhancement of such content. All software used on this site is the property of Administrator or its software suppliers and is protected by US and international copyright laws. Employer may not modify, remove, delete, augment, add to, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, create derivative works from, or in any way exploit any of the content on the site, in whole or in part. Any use other than as contemplated herein, including the reproduction, modification, distribution, transmission, republication, display, or performance of the content on this site, except as specifically permitted below, is strictly prohibited. BenXcel is a trademark of Administrator. All other marks, names, and logos mentioned on the BenXcel site are the property of their respective owners. Employer’s use of the Administrator’s trademarks is strictly prohibited.
SECTION V - INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
5.1 The terms and provisions of the Administration Agreement are made a part hereof and incorporated herein by reference.
32 BENEFIT COORDINATORS CORPORATION
ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT
COBRA EXHIBIT
COBRA Administration Agreement
Employer hereby appoints the Administrator as COBRA Administrator, under Employer’s employee welfare benefit plan identified below. The Administrator will provide the following administrative services, effective Jan 1, 2025, under the following terms and conditions of this Agreement:
SECTION I - PLAN INFORMATION
1.1 Plan Name(s): City of Visalia.
SECTION II – THE ADMINISTRATOR’S RESPONSIBILITIES
2.1 Initial Notice of COBRA rights to active employees (if elected below). This service is available to Employer only if the Administrator is providing active healthcare billing.
2.2 Notifications to qualified beneficiaries, including:
(a) COBRA Continuation Election Form
(b) Notification of late COBRA election
(c) Notification of late or incorrect initial check
(d) Notification to COBRA participants of the Administrator as new administrator (e) Carrier Rate change notification
(f) Notice of Conversion Rights including general notice of California Bill No. 1401 where applicable. (g) Notification at end of maximum coverage period
(h) Cancellation due to non-payment or late payment of premium
2.3 Monthly Premium Billing of COBRA participants, sent directly to participants.
2.4 Monthly reports posted to BenXcel:
(a) COBRA Participant Notification Report
(b) COBRA Participant Report
2.5 Monthly collection of active COBRA Participant premiums (via lockbox)
2.6 Monthly premium remittance to Employer (if Employer is responsible for remittance to carrier) or to carrier (if the Administrator is responsible for remittance to carrier) for Employer’s portion of monthly COBRA premium. (Carrier notification and remittance responsibilities are as set forth in the “Carrier Notification and Remittance” section on the last page of this Agreement.)
2.7 If the Administrator confronts a question of interpretation of the requirements of COBRA that is not answered by the COBRA provisions of the plan, the Administrator will promptly inform Employer and abide by Employer’s determination as to the requirements of COBRA.
2.8 Nothing in this Agreement requires the Administrator to provide COBRA administration services with respect to any employee benefit plans (e.g., flexible spending accounts, HRAs, health savings accounts, etc.) maintained by 33 Employer other than the Plan identified in Section I above Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Administrator will be responsible for COBRA administration services with regard to such other plans if such other plans are provided to Employer by the Administrator and the Administrator specifically agrees to be responsible for COBRA administration with regard to such other plans.
SECTION III – EMPLOYER’S RESPONSIBILITIES
3.1 Employer will promptly forward to the Administrator copies of all notices of qualified beneficiaries under ERISA section 606(3) that a Qualified Event described in ERISA section 603(3) or 603(5) has occurred within thirty (30) days of the Qualifying Event.
3.2 Qualifying Event notices sent to the Administrator from Employer will include:
(a) the date and type of Qualifying Event (including identification of any absence due to service in the uniformed services of the United States);
(b) the names of all qualified beneficiaries;
(c) the last addresses known to the sponsor of all qualified beneficiaries; (d) the Social Security numbers or participant identification numbers of all qualified beneficiaries; and (e) the date when coverage will cease absent an election of continuation coverage under COBRA.
3.3 Employer shall notify COBRA participants of plan changes and provide participants with any other materials regarding the plan, such as benefit booklets, identification cards, and claim forms, from time to time as changes require.
3.4 Except as specifically provided in the “Carrier Notification and Remittance” section of this Agreement, Employer shall notify and remit premiums to all applicable insurance carriers, in accordance with the carriers’ billing policies. To facilitate Employer’s performance of these duties, the Administrator will notify Employer when a qualified beneficiary has elected COBRA continuation coverage or terminated COBRA continuation coverage.
The Administrator will notify carriers and remit premiums only as specifically provided in the “Carrier Notification and Remittance” section on the last page of this Agreement. (The Administrator will provide such notification and remittance services only if the Administrator is providing billing administration services with respect to Employer’s active employees.) For those insurance carriers which the Administrator directly notifies and/or remits, Employer, as the Plan Administrator, is ultimately responsible for complying with all carrier eligibility and payment provisions.
3.5 Unless otherwise noted on the Schedule of Fees Exhibit attached hereto, Employer will notify active participants of their general COBRA rights, by means of the Initial Notice of COBRA Rights referred to in section 606(a)(1) of ERISA.
CARRIER NOTIFICATION AND REMITTANCE
Employer will be responsible for notification and remittance to all insurer carriers, with the following exceptions:
Carrier Plan
Party Responsible
for Notification
Party Responsible
for Remittance
Anthem ALL BCC BCC
Delta Dental ALL BCC BCC
VSP Vision ALL BCC BCC
Express Scripts ALL BCC N/A
34 BENEFIT COORDINATORS CORPORATION
ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT
RETIREE BILLING EXHIBIT
Retiree Billing and Remittance Services Agreement
Employer appoints the Administrator to provide retiree billing and remittance services (the “Services”) under Employer’s employee welfare benefit plan(s) identified below under the following terms and conditions of this Agreement:
SECTION I - PLAN INFORMATION
1.1 Plan Name(s) City of Visalia.
SECTION II – THE ADMINISTRATOR’S RESPONSIBILITIES
2.1 Maintain eligibility for the various insurance products under the Plan in accordance with the carrier policies.
2.2 Update coverage amounts when approval notification has been received from a carrier when applicable.
2.3 Invoice individual retirees for premiums relating to any coverages for which the retirees are required to pay.
2.4 Remit retiree premiums back to Employer, when active employee premiums for products are not being invoiced by the Administrator or to the carrier but when the Administrator is invoicing Employer for the active employee premiums for the products.
SECTION III - EMPLOYER’S RESPONSIBILITIES
3.1 Provide employee eligibility information and documentation to the Administrator on a timely basis.
3.2 Review monthly invoices for errors and/or omissions, and promptly (and in no event later than 60 days) notify the Administrator of any such errors or omissions.
3.3 Remit fees to the Administrator on a timely basis.
3.4 Provide timely notification of all Plan, rate and insurance carrier changes to the Administrator.
SECTION IV - INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
4.1 The terms and provisions of the Administration Agreement are made a part hereof and incorporated herein by reference.
35 BENEFIT COORDINATORS CORPORATION
ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT
SCHEDULE OF FEES EXHIBIT
Schedule of Fees for City of Visalia as of 01/01/2025
SERVICES QUOTED BUT NOT ELECTED AT TIME OF IMPLEMENTATION 1, 2
1. Fees listed for non-elected services are subject to being requoted at time of election.
2. A signed Agreement Amendment and corresponding Services Exhibit will be required to begin implementation of the newly elected service.
Consolidated Invoicing:
Initial, non-refundable Setup Fee due upon
execution of this Agreement: $ Included in PRISM program EDI Carrier Connection Fee – per carrier: $1,500 (first 3 files are included at no charge)
Ancillary Lines of Coverage Monthly
Administration Fee:
$.50 per Medical Enrolled
Flexible Spending Account Administration:
Initial, non-refundable Setup Fee due upon
execution of this Agreement: $ Included in PRISM program Monthly Administration Fee: $ Included in PRISM program Minimum Monthly Fee: $ Included in PRISM program
*BCC receives a small percentage of each debit card swipe from Alegeus Technologies, LLC to offset any expenses in issuing debit cards to the employees or dependents over the age of 18.
COBRA Administration:
Initial, non-refundable Setup Fee due upon
execution of this Agreement: $ Included in PRISM program Monthly Administration Fee (without Initial
Notices):
$ Included in PRISM program
Minimum Monthly Fee: $ Included in PRISM program
BCC retains 2% - BCC invoices the COBRA participant the monthly premium plus 2% (BCC retains) representing the COBRA Administration allowance permitted under The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. 36 Retiree Administration:
Initial, non-refundable Setup Fee due upon
execution of this Agreement:
Ancillary Lines of Coverage Monthly
Administration Fee:
$ Included in PRISM program
$.50 per Medical Enrolled
Other Fees and Services:
Annual COBRA and Retiree Open Enrollment
Fulfillment/Communication Services
• OPTION A: Census Report No Charge
• OPTION B: Website & Notification Letters $250 PER WEBSITE, and $4 PER LETTER
Printed open enrollment packet fulfillment charge
$25.00 per packet; must be pre-
approved by client prior to
mailing
Additional Services and Materials Fees quoted upon request Wire Transfer Fee: $25.00 per wire
Development hours exceeding standard
development time (as quoted per project)
$125/hour
ACH Transfer Fee:
Non-Sufficient Funds Fee:
No Charge
$25.00 per rejected
check/transaction
Reinstatement Fee: Determined by Administrator at
time of reinstatement
Meetings, Health Fairs No charge for webinars. On-site
meetings may incur time/travel
charge. Fee will be quoted
when a meeting is requested.
37 SERVICES QUOTED BUT NOT ELECTED AT TIME OF IMPLEMENTATION 1, 2
1. Fees listed for non-elected services are subject to being requoted at time of election.
2. A signed Agreement Amendment and corresponding Services Exhibit will be required to begin implementation of the newly elected service.
Data Packages:
Demographic File Processing Packages:
Initial, non-refundable Setup Fee due upon
execution of this Agreement: $500 If Elected
Monthly Administration Fee:
Payroll Deduction File Processing Packages:
$.10 Per Eligible If Elected
Initial, non-refundable Setup Fee due upon
execution of this Agreement: $2000 If Elected
Monthly Administration Fee: $.40 Per Eligible If Elected 38 Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 24-0456 Agenda Date: 11/18/2024 Agenda #: 4.
Agenda Item Wording:
Notice of Completion for the FY23-24 Reclamite Project - Authorize the City Manager to file a Notice of Completion for the FY 23-24 Reclamite Project.
Deadline for Action: 11/18/2024
Submitting Department: Public Works
Contact Name and Phone Number:
Danny Galindo, Public Works Manager, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> 713- 4186
Nick Bartsch, Public Works Director, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> 713-4052 Department Recommendation:
Staff recommends that City Council authorize the City Manager to file a Notice of Completion for the FY 23-24 Reclamite Project (CIP 1410-72000/CP0248-999 & CIP 2730-72000/CP8358-999).
Summary and Background:
The City currently utilizes multiple pavement preservations methods including, but not limited to, reclamite, cape seal, and crack seal. The streets are analyzed through the City’s pavement management program to determine the most applicable, and most cost-effective maintenance method to optimize the City’s limited resources.
The annual Reclamite Project is developed from a project list derived from the City’s pavement management program, in combination with field investigations. To increase the longevity of pavement surfaces, it is important for the City to perform the correct preventative maintenance treatment to streets at the appropriate time. The reclamite process restores and preserves the durability of existing asphalt by applying a rejuvenating agent used to penetrate the surface of the pavement and restore components of the asphalt that are lost from exposure to the elements and the aging process. Performing a reclamite pavement treatment at the appropriate life-stage of the selected streets is beneficial as it extends the life of the pavement at a relatively inexpensive cost. Without this preventive maintenance, as streets continuously deteriorate, future maintenance becomes more expensive and more time consuming.
This year’s Reclamite Project was performed throughout the City as shown in the attached map. The project treated approximately 54 miles of streets, which encompassed an area of 1,851,827 square yards. The contractor, Talley Oil of Madera, CA, completed the FY 23-24 Reclamite Project within the allotted contract timeframe and budget. The project was publicized through the City’s social media and the contractor’s own notification process, which minimized complaints.
In the last 5 years, the City has treated approximately 290-total miles of streets with the application of the reclamite asphalt rejuvenation process, equating to a total area of 6.6 million square yards. To optimize the benefits of this process, it is scheduled to be reapplied to eligible streets every 4-5 years.
Visalia City Council Page 1 of 3 Printed on 11/15/2024
powered by Legistar™ 39
File #: 24-0456 Agenda Date: 11/18/2024 Agenda #: 4.
Fiscal Impact:
This project was funded by Measure N and Landscape and Lighting Districts (L&L). Since L&L District funds can only be used in the respective L&L district, the project is split into two parts:
CP0248 - Measure N (Fund 141)
CP8358 - L&L (Fund 273)
Each L&L District maintains its own fund balance for which any maintenance activity (i.e. landscaping, pavement rehabilitation, etc.) performed within that district is charged. Older assessment districts were not assessed to cover pavement rehabilitation maintenance at the time. In these cases, Measure N Funds are used to cover costs.
The authorized budget for each project is as follows:
Measure N Reclamite Project for 2023-24 (1410-72000/CP0248-999) $ 1,500,000 L&L Reclamite Project for 2023-24 (2730-72000/CP8358-999) $ 756,000 The total cost of the FY 2023-24 Reclamite Project for Measure N and L&L District is shown below:
Project Cost Summary: FY 23-24 Reclamite Project, CP0248 (Measure N Fund) Project Budget $1,500,000.00
Project Costs:
Construction Cost $1,214,219.45
Construction Management & Inspection $11,975.91
Total Project Cost $1,226,195.36
Project Budget Surplus (Measure N) $273,804.64
Project Cost Summary: FY 23-24 Reclamite Project, CP8358 (L&L Fund) Project Budget $756,000.00
Project Costs:
Construction Cost $92,433.15
Construction Management $123.80
Total Project Cost $92,556.95
Project Budget Surplus (L&L Fund) $663,443.05
Note that the L&L Fund balance represents the sum balance of the available pavement maintenance budget of all districts combined; each district’s balance varies from district to district. Cost expenditures for each district will be tracked and recorded against each district upon project completion. The L&Ls involved have adequate funding for this project.
Unexpended Measure N and L&L funds, following completion of the project, will be returned to its respective fund sources to be used for future pavement preservation projects.
Prior Council Action:
October 16, 2023: City Council authorized the City Manager to award the FY 23-24 Reclamite Project to Talley Visalia City Council Page 2 of 3 Printed on 11/15/2024
powered by Legistar™ 40
File #: 24-0456 Agenda Date: 11/18/2024 Agenda #: 4.
Oil of Madera, Ca in the amount of $1,325,012.20.
Alternatives:
None recommended.
Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):
I move to authorize the City Manager to file a Notice of Completion for the FY 23-24 Reclamite Project.
Attachments:
1) Reclamite Project Map
2) Contractor Disclosure Form
Visalia City Council Page 3 of 3 Printed on 11/15/2024
powered by Legistar™ 41
42 !
!
!
!
!
!
! ROAD 68 ROAD 76 KELSEY ST. SHIRK ST. AKERS ST. DEMAREE ST. MOONEY BLVD. Hwy 198 Shirk Ave 320 Doe
Houston Kelsey Akers Hwy 9 Shannon Pratt Rd 68 Giddings Plaza Kibler Goshen Rd 92 Riggin Demaree Betty Main Ch ni owth NobleRd 88
Hurley Ferguson Campus Rd 100 Mineral King Riverway Rd 108 Sunnyview Hall Murray Linwood Ave 312 Ave 308 Rd 76 Mil Creek
Center American Mooney Wood al nd Rd 86 Clancy Roeben Neeley Ave 304 Ave 298 D vi si adero County Center Rd 116 Plaza Roeben Demaree D vi si adero Mineral King Ferguson Ave 304 Houston L ni wood Mooney
Noble
Goshen Hurley Akers AmericanGoshen Mineral King Ave 320 Rd 68 Demaree Rd 68 Noble Kelsey Mineral King Ave 312 Plaza
Riggin Mineral King Riggin G di d ni gs Riverway Mooney ¯ Legend
Base Bid (Project A)-Measure N Fund
Alt Bid 1 (Project B)-L&L Fund
Alt Bid 2 (Project C)-Measure N Fund
43 Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 24-0463 Agenda Date: 11/18/2024 Agenda #: 5.
Agenda Item Wording:
Award a Contract for Walnut Orchard Demolition and Removal and Appropriation of Funds - Award a contract to JFS Enterprises for Walnut Orchard Demolition and Removal in the amount of $495,000 to demolish and remove 130 acres of Walnut Orchards surrounding the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF), and appropriate $550,000 from the Wastewater Fund.
Deadline for Action: 11/18/2024
Submitting Department: Public Works
Contact Name and Phone Number: Nick Bartsch 559-713-4428 ; Ben Litwack 559-713-4671 ; Rehana Cale 559-713-4176
Department Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Council authorize staff to enter into a contract with JFS Enterprises in the amount of $495,000 for the demolition and removal of the 130 Acres of Walnut Orchards surrounding the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) in accordance with RFB-24-25-18; and appropriate $550,000 from the Wastewater Fund (431).
Background Discussion:
Based on the health and condition of the walnut orchards, historical and projected crop production, and associated uncertainties related to groundwater sustainability regulations, the City Council directed City staff to stop farming the 130 acres of Walnuts in December 2023. This direction also included the removal of the walnut orchard and the exploration of long-term lease options that would be compatible with the Wastewater Treatment Plant operations.
Request for Bids RFB-24-25-18: Walnut Orchard Demolition & Removal was advertised in the Visalia Times Delta on September 25th and October 1st, 2024. Notices were sent to 57 agricultural contractors, 24 tree service contractors and posted on BidNetDirect online. A pre-bid meeting was held on October 8, 2024 and several Contractors attended. Based on the pricing recently experienced for similar work on the City’s East Side Orchard Removal Project, staff estimated these costs to be $975,000. On October 22, 2024, the City received eight (8) bids, with JFS Enterprises being the lowest bid.
Bid Summary:
1. JFS Enterprises Fresno, CA $ 495,000
2. Kroeker Fresno, CA $ 595,000
3. Nates Tree Service Sonora, CA $ 605,000
4. Ares Engineering Tollhouse, CA $ 795,250
5. HD Mathews Demo and Excavation Fresno, CA $ 860,323.12
6. Ag Industrial Enterprises Earlimart, CA $ 886,396.20 Visalia City Council Page 1 of 3 Printed on 11/15/2024
powered by Legistar™ 44
File #: 24-0463 Agenda Date: 11/18/2024 Agenda #: 5.
7. DSB Ag Services Williams, CA $ 961,940
8. Katch Environmental Fresno, CA $ 1,415,000
Staff has reviewed JFS Enterprises’ qualifications and their provided references and found them to be properly licensed with a positive work history. Additionally, JFS Enterprises is the current contractor on the East Side Orchard Removal project, which is underway and progressing satisfactorily.
Fiscal Impact:
The farmland surrounding the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) is owned by the Wastewater Fund (431) and operated under the Farming Division (4344). Therefore, costs associated with the operation, and the subject tree removal, are paid by the Wastewater Fund (431). Staff is requesting the appropriation of $550,000 to cover the cost of the removal contract and provide a contingency to address any unforeseen conditions that may be encountered.
Based on the prior direction from City Council to take these walnuts out of production, Staff recently submitted a proposal to the Greater Kaweah Ground Water Sustainability Agency (GKGSA) to fallow this land, under their 2024-2025 Fallowing Program. The program is offered to Growers within the GKGSA’s jurisdictional boundaries in an effort to reduce demand on the groundwater resources of the GKGSA, thus reducing impacts to domestic and irrigation wells, and move toward groundwater sustainability. Subject to Council’s acceptance and approval of a land-fallowing agreement with the GKGSA, under this program, the land shall remain fallowed from October 1, 2024 through September 30, 2025. In turn, the City would receive $500 per field acre that is fallowed. Therefore, if accepted, this would equate to approximately $60,435 in revenue that could ultimately be used to offset the impact of these one-time expenses of removal.
Prior Council Action: - December
18, 2023 - City Council was presented an update to the city-owned farmland and farming operations and provided direction to cease farming operations of the 130 acres of walnuts. - February 16, 2021 - City Council was presented an update to the city-owned farmland and farming operations. - February 19, 2019 - City Council
entered into a contract with Jeb Headrick Farming for an annual not to exceed amount of $1,000,000.
Other: N/A
Alternatives: N/A
Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):
I move to authorize staff to enter into a contract with JFS Enterprises in the amount of $495,000 for the demolition and removal of the 130 Acres of Walnut Orchards surrounding the Water Reclamation Facility in accordance with RFB-24-25-18; and appropriate $550,000 from the Wastewater Fund (431).
Environmental Assessment Status: N/A
CEQA Review: N/A
Visalia City Council Page 2 of 3 Printed on 11/15/2024
powered by Legistar™ 45
File #: 24-0463 Agenda Date: 11/18/2024 Agenda #: 5.
Attachments: Attachment #1 - Orchard Removal Map
Visalia City Council Page 3 of 3 Printed on 11/15/2024
powered by Legistar™ 46
W
W
W
No
rth Fo
rk Pe
rs i an Ditch
Watson Ditch
Mill Creek
Rd 68
Ave 288
Block 3
Block 1
Block 4
Block 5
Block 2
Well No. 1
Well No. 2
Nearmap US
¯
W Active Well
W Inactive Well
Transportation Line
Orchard
Waterways
0 500 1,000 250
Feet
City of Visalia Walnut Orchards
(Ave 288 & Rd 68)
** All features displayed on the map are a general depiction of irrigation assets and therefore may not accurately reflect their true location.
ATTACHMENT 1
47 Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 24-0469 Agenda Date: 11/18/2024 Agenda #: 6.
Agenda Item Wording:
Award a Contract for Biosolids Hauling - Authorize the City Manager to award an annual contract to Romanazzi Trucking for the hauling of biosolids from the Visalia Water Reclamation Facility not to exceed $170,000 per year, with an option to renew annually up to four (4) additional one-year terms, totaling no more than $850,000 over the life of the contract.
Deadline for Action: 11/18/2024
Submitting Department: Public Works
Contact Name and Phone Number:
Nick Bartsch, Public Works Director, 559-713-4428, [email protected] < mailto:[email protected]>
Ben Litwack, Public Works Manager, 559-713-4671, [email protected] < mailto:[email protected]>
Rehana Cale, Project Manager, 559-713-4176, [email protected] < mailto:[email protected]>
Department Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager to award an annual contract to Romanazzi Trucking of Exeter, CA for the hauling of biosolids from the Visalia Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) per RFB 23-24-57 not to exceed $170,000 per year, with an option to renew annually up to four (4) additional one-year terms, totaling no more than $850,000 over the life of the contract.
Background Discussion:
Each year, the Visalia Water Reclamation Facility removes the annual stockpile of treated biosolids in accordance with the Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board. Until recently, this work was performed by a third party that removed the biosolids from the WRF and transported them to another location for beneficial reuse. However, beneficial reuse has proven to be a significantly more expensive option, so over the past year staff has found an option to utilize the Tulare County Landfill for disposal until either a more affordable beneficial reuse option is available, or the landfill is no longer a viable option. With this alternative method of disposal, the City has utilized a trucking contractor for the transport of this material until this service could be formally bid out in accordance with the City’s Purchasing Policy. The biosolids stockpile for 2024 is estimated to be 9,000 tons and will take approximately 45 total days to remove, given the Tulare County Landfill’s current limitation to accept no more than 200 tons of biosolids per day, 3 days per week.
On October 22, 2024, 3 bids were received for RFB 23-24-57 and were opened publicly. The bids received are as follows:
Bidder’s Name Location Total Bid Amount
WTB Visalia, CA $3,600/day
Romanazzi Trucking Exeter, CA $3,240/day
Mike Clark Trucking Services PortervilleCA $3240/day
Visalia City Council Page 1 of 3 Printed on 11/12/2024
powered by Legistar™ 48
File #: 24-0469 Agenda Date: 11/18/2024 Agenda #: 6.
Bidder’s Name Location Total Bid Amount
WTB Visalia, CA $3,600/day
Romanazzi Trucking Exeter, CA $3,240/day
Mike Clark Trucking Services Porterville, CA $3,240/day Both Romanazzi Trucking and Mike Clark Trucking Services tied for the lowest bid.
On October 31, 2024, in accordance with the City’s Purchasing Policy, a tie-breaking coin-toss was held, and Romanazzi Trucking was the winner of the bid.
The total estimated cost represents the cost per day and is calculated as follows:
Transport Biosolids
from Visalia WRF to
Tulare County Landfill
per specifications of
RFB-23-24-57
A Hourly Rate
Per Truck
X B Estimated # of
Trucks Required Per
Day
X C Estimated
Hours Per Day
= D Cost Per Day
$ _____ hr.
(per hour, per
truck)
X 3 X 8 hrs. = $ _________
Total bid price
It’s important to emphasize that the hourly rate (Column A) is the most relevant factor in this due to the varying availability of trucks and the capacity of the landfill to accept biosolids from the Visalia WRF, with a daily limit of 200 tons. Operational conditions may lead to deviations from these daily estimates, but invoicing will be based on the bid hourly rate per truck. Romanazzi Trucking has provided an hourly rate of $135 per truck, resulting in a daily rate of $3,240 for the estimated (3) trucks per day. The annual contract not-to-exceed amount of $170,000 was based on transporting approximately 9,000 tons of biosolids, assuming a 45-day transport period (9,000 tons ÷ 200 tons/day = 45 days) at $3,240 per day. Staff is requesting a total of $170,000 to cover the cost of removal and any minor contingencies.
Fiscal Impact:
These hauling and disposal costs are budgeted annually within the Biosolids division 4336-55700, and sufficient funds are available to cover these expenses.
Prior Council Action: N/A
Other: N/A
Alternatives: Reject bid and direct staff to rebid project Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):
I move to authorize the City Manager to award an annual contract to Romanazzi Trucking of Exeter, CA for the hauling of biosolids from the Visalia Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) per RFB 23-24-57 not to exceed $170,000 per year, with an option to renew annually up to four (4) additional one-year terms, totaling no more than $850,000 over the life of the contract.
Visalia City Council Page 2 of 3 Printed on 11/12/2024
powered by Legistar™ 49
File #: 24-0469 Agenda Date: 11/18/2024 Agenda #: 6.
Environmental Assessment Status: N/A
CEQA Review: N/A
Attachments:
1.) RFB 24-25-57
2.) RFB 24-25-57 Bid Summary
3.) RFB-23-24-57 Romanazzi Trucking LLC Bid Packet with Contract and Disclosures Visalia City Council Page 3 of 3 Printed on 11/12/2024
powered by Legistar™ 50
RFB NO. 23-24-57
TRANSPORTATION OF BIOSOLIDS TO TULARE COUNTY LANDFILL
Page i
CITY OF VISALIA, CA
REQUEST FOR BID (“RFB”) NO. 23-24-57
ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR
TRANSPORTATION OF BIOSOLIDS TO
TULARE COUNTY LANDFILL
BIDS DUE NO LATER THAN 2:00 P.M. on TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2024 The City of Visalia expressly reserves the right to modify, or withdraw from, the process initiated and described herein. No rights shall be vested in any party, individual or entity by virtue of its preparation to participate in, or its participation in, such process. The City expressly reserves the right to modify, for any reason, the schedule and any provision contained herein. The City reserves to itself the selection of winning respondent(s), if any, in the exercise of its sole discretion. No binding commitment shall arise on the part of the City to any respondent under this Request for Bid until and unless the parties sign documents of agreement that become effective in accordance with their terms. Responses to this RFB, however, shall be held firm by Respondent for at least ninety (90) days.
PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT: This is a Public Works Maintenance Contract, therefore it is subject to registration with the Department of Industrial Relations, payment of prevailing wages, submission of certified payroll records to the Labor Commissioner and other requirements listed in the City of Visalia Labor Compliance Manual (attached). All Bidders, Contractors and Subcontractors must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations.
Ad Dates: 9/24/24 & 10/1/24
51 RFB NO. 23-24-57
TRANSPORTATION OF BIOSOLIDS TO THE TULARE COUNTY LANDFILL (VISALIA WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY)
Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. DEFINITIONS ...................................................................................................... 3 II. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 3 III. DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REQUIREMENTS............................. 4 IV. INSTRUCTIONS ................................................................................................... 7 V. SCOPE OF SERVICES/PROJECT......................................................................... 8 VI. PRE-BID AND PRECONSTRUCTION MEETINGS................................................... 9 VII. BID OPENING AND CONFIDENTIALITY............................................................... 10 VIII. AWARD .............................................................................................................. 10 IX. PROTESTS/APPEALS ......................................................................................... 11 X. SPECIAL CONDITIONS ....................................................................................... 11 XI. GENERAL CONDITIONS ..................................................................................... 14 XII. POST AWARD RESPONSIBILITIES ...................................................................... 17
EXHIBITS
A. BID FORM
B. CERTIFICATIONS, AFFIDAVITS, ASSURANCES, STATEMENTS, WAIVERS, AND
QUESTIONNAIRES WHICH MUST ACCOMPANY BID FORM
B-1. Bidder’s Statement on Previous Contracts Subject to EEO Clauses B-2. Equal Employment Opportunity Compliance Certificate B-3. Certificate of Non-segregated Facilities
B-4. Non-Collusion Affidavit
B-5. Worker’s Compensation Insurance Certificate
B-6. Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance Certificate B-7. Disclosures Form
B-8. Drug-Free Workplace
B-9. Iran Contracting Act
C. SAMPLE PROJECT AGREEMENT WITH ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT 1 - GENERAL CONTRACT PROVISIONS
ATTACHMENT 2 - INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
D. STATE OF CALIFORNIA PREVAILING WAGE RATES
E. CITY OF VISALIA LABOR COMPLIANCE MANUAL
52 RFB NO. 23-24-57
TRANSPORTATION OF BIOSOLIDS TO THE TULARE COUNTY LANDFILL (VISALIA WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY)
I. DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of RFB NO. 23-24-57 the following terms shall have the meanings indicated:
1. “City” means the City of Visalia
2. “City Council” means the Council of the City of Visalia
3. "Bidder", "Vendor", "Supplier", “Consultant”, “Contractor” and “Subrecipient” are used interchangeably throughout this invitation to mean the person, firm, or corporation or other entity submitting a Bid in response to the Request for Bid.
4. “Bid” and “Proposal” are used interchangeably to mean an individual’s or entity’s offer in response to this Request for Bid.
5. “RFB” means Request for Bid No. 23-24-57.
II. INTRODUCTION
The City of Visalia Purchasing Division is soliciting Bids for an annual contract for the transportation of biosolids to the Tulare County Landfill. Bidders will provide an hourly rate to transport approximately 7,000 tons of biosolids from the City of Visalia Water Reclamation Facility (7579 Ave. 288, Visalia) to the disposal site (landfill) which is located at 8614 Ave. 328 in Visalia, CA. The City will provide equipment and labor to load the biosolids into the transport vehicles. The City will also be responsible for the disposal fees.
The successful bidder shall be responsible for providing the transport vehicles (including all fuel), hauling and dumping at the landfill.
The initial contract term shall be for a twelve (12) month period and shall, at the City’s option and with the consent of the CONTRACTOR, be extended annually thereafter for four (4) consecutive one-year periods." Bids are being sought from companies who have a proven record of experience in providing the services required by this Invitation to Bid.
Under the requirements of Labor Code section 1782 passed by SB7 and in compliance with City of Visalia Ordinance 2014-13, this public works project is subject to State prevailing wages as specified in the specifications. See Section III for additional Department of Industrial Relations Requirements which apply to this project.
Local Vendor Preference: In an effort to encourage local businesses to provide goods and services to the City, Council has enacted a local preference. The local preference will apply to any business that has a business address within Tulare County for a minimum of six months. A Post Office Box will not be accepted as a business address. The City reserves the right to request proof of Tulare County address.
The local preference for bids consists of a match preference in which a local vendor whose bid is within 5% of the apparent low bidder will be given three (3) business days, from date notified, to match or beat the low bid. If there is more than one local vendor that is within the 5% range, the offer goes to the local vendor that is closest to the low bid.
The City hereby affirmatively ensures that Minority Business Enterprises and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) will be afforded full opportunity to submit proposals in response to this notice. Individuals and/or entities submitting bids/proposals to the City of Visalia will not be discriminated against on the basis of age, race, religion, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical or mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status in any consideration leading to the award of contract.
53 RFB NO. 23-24-57
TRANSPORTATION OF BIOSOLIDS TO THE TULARE COUNTY LANDFILL (VISALIA WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY)
No qualified disabled person shall, on the basis of disability, be excluded from participating in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity leading to the award of a contract.
Executive Order N-6-22 – Russia Sanctions On March 4, 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-6-22 (the EO) regarding Economic Sanctions against Russia and Russian entities and individuals. “Economic Sanctions” refers to sanctions imposed by the U.S. government in response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine, as well as any sanctions imposed under state law. By submitting a bid or proposal, Contractor represents that it is not a target of Economic Sanctions.
Should the State determine Contractor is a target of Economic Sanctions or is conducting prohibited transactions with sanctioned individuals or entities, that shall be grounds for rejection of the Contractor’s bid/proposal any time prior to contract execution, or, if determined after contract execution, shall be grounds for termination by the State.
III. DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REQUIREMENTS,
Public Works Contractor Registration Program and Project Labor Agreements Notice is hereby given that this contract is considered a public works contract and therefore, subject to DIR monitoring. All contractors and subcontractors bidding and performing work on Public Works Projects must be currently registered with the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). Awarded Contractor is required to furnish electronic payroll records for new projects to the Labor Commissioner.
No contract will be awarded unless that contractor and/or subcontractors are registered with the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). Bids by unregistered contractors submitted may be rejected as non-responsive.
A contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered contractor to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or by Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the contractor is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 at the time the contract is awarded.
If a project labor agreement (the term “project labor agreement” is defined in Public Contract Code 2500(b)(1) as a prehire collective bargaining agreement that establishes terms and conditions of employment for a specific construction project or projects and is an agreement described in Section 158(f) of Title 29 of the United States Code) is used, then it must comply with the taxpayer protection provisions set forth in Public Contract Code section 2500(a). City of Visalia has no ordinances requiring or prohibiting such agreements.
The following statements and requirements are to be included in all City of Visalia public work contracts that require the payment of prevailing wages in accordance with California Labor Code (CLC). This RFB document becomes a part of the public works contract for this project and therefore, the CLC contract language requirements are incorporated into the contract. ❑ As set forth in CLC section 1771.1(a), all contractors and subcontractors must be currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to CLC section 1725.5 to be qualified to bid, be listed in a bid proposal, or perform any public work for the City of Visalia.
Proof of registration for each contractor and subcontractor listed on the bid is required. 54 RFB NO. 23-24-57
TRANSPORTATION OF BIOSOLIDS TO THE TULARE COUNTY LANDFILL (VISALIA WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY)
❑ As set forth is CLC section 1771.4 (a)(1), notice is given that this project is a public work, subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations.
❑ As set forth in CLC section 1771.4(a)(2), the prime contractor is required by the City of Visalia to post job site notices, as prescribed by regulation. Information on required workplace postings may be found on the Department of Labor website at:
http://www.dir.ca.gov/wpnodb.html .
❑ The contractor and each subcontractor shall maintain all project records required under CLC for public works projects and preserve them for a minimum 3-year period to begin on the date a Notice of Completion is filed for the project. Please refer to the retention period required for any grant or specialized project funding. Some funding sources require an extended time period for records retention.
❑ In accordance with CLC section 1773.2, the contractor is required, by the City of Visalia, to post a copy of the determination of the Director of Labor Standards prevailing rate of per diem wages for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the contract at each job site.
❑ In accordance with labor code section 1776 and it’s enforcement (1771.4(a)(3)), for initial contracts awarded on or after April 1, 2015 each project contractor and subcontractor shall; o Maintain and furnish directly to the Labor Commissioner, bi-weekly, a certified copy of each weekly payroll as specified in section 1776 containing a statement of compliance with labor code sections 1771, 1811 and 1815, signed under penalty of perjury.
o Make available or provide a certified copy of these payroll records and their supporting documentation within 10 days to all authorized parties upon written request and be subject to penalties for non-compliance as detailed in labor code section 1776.
o Inform the City of Visalia of the location of the payroll records kept in compliance with labor code section 1776(g) and notify the City of Visalia within 5 working days of any change in their location.
❑ The City of Visalia will comply with any prevailing wage monitoring and enforcement activities required by the labor compliance programs of the Department of Industrial Relations including the withholding of contract payments in the amount of any underpayment of prevailing wage and applicable penalties as directed by the Department of Labor Standards Enforcement in accordance with CLC section 1727(a). Any amount withheld will be released as directed by the Labor Commissioner upon receipt of a certified copy of a final order no longer subject to judicial review in accordance with CLC section 1742(f).
❑ As set forth in labor code section 1775(b), the following subcontractor provisions shall be included in any contract executed between the contractor and a subcontractor for performance of work on this public work project:
o As set forth in CLC section 1775(b)(1), any contract executed between a contractor and a subcontractor for the performance of work on a City of Visalia public works project shall include a copy of the provisions of Labor Code sections 1771, 1776, 55 RFB NO. 23-24-57
TRANSPORTATION OF BIOSOLIDS TO THE TULARE COUNTY LANDFILL (VISALIA WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY)
1777.5, 1813, and 1815. These labor code sections must be included within or as attachments to the contract.
o As set forth in CLC section 1776, the subcontractor shall maintain and furnish directly to the Labor Commissioner, bi-weekly, a certified copy of each weekly payroll as specified in section 1776 containing a statement of compliance with labor code sections 1771, 1776, 1811 and 1815, signed under penalty of perjury. o As set forth in CLC section 1775(b)(2), the contractor shall monitor the payment of the specified general prevailing rate of per diem wages by the subcontractor to the employees, by periodic review of the certified payroll records of the subcontractor. o As set forth in CLC section 1775(b)(3), upon becoming aware of the failure of the subcontractor to pay his or her workers the specified prevailing rate of wages, the contractor shall diligently take corrective action to halt or rectify the failure, including, but not limited to, retaining sufficient funds due the subcontractor for work performed on the public works project.
o As set forth in CLC section 1775(b)(4), prior to making final payment to the subcontractor for work performed on the public works project, the contractor shall obtain an affidavit signed under penalty of perjury from the subcontractor that the subcontractor has paid the specified general prevailing rate of per diem wages to his or her employees on the public works project and any amounts due pursuant to Section 1813. Prior to the release of retention to the contractor, the COV will require a copy of the affidavit(s) completed by each listed subcontractor. ❑ In accordance with CLC section 1777.5(e), prior to commencing work on a contract for public work; every contractor shall submit contract award information to an applicable apprenticeship program that can supply apprentices to the site of the public work. ❑ Only apprentices, as defined in CLC section 3077, in training under apprenticeship standards approved by the Division of Apprenticeship Standards (DAP) and party to written apprentice agreements under CLC section 3070-3098 may be employed at the apprentice wage rate on public works.
❑ Unless exempted under CLC section 1777.5(j), a contractor working on a public works contract of $30,000 or more shall employ the number of apprentices or the ratio of apprentices to journeymen stipulated in the applicable apprenticeship standards (CLC 1777.5(n)). In no event shall the ratio be less than one hour of apprentice work for every five hours of journeyman work.
❑ The prime contractor is responsible for compliance with the requirements of CLC section 1777.5 for all apprenticeable occupations employed on the contract. As stated in 1777.5 (o), the apprenticeship requirement does not apply to contracts of general contractors or to contracts of specialty contractors not bidding for work through a general or prime contractor when the contract is less than thirty thousand dollars ($30,000). ❑ As stated in section 1777.7(e), the prime contractor will not be liable for any penalties assessed for violations of section 1777.5 if they have complied with the following requirements:
o The contract executed between the contractor and the subcontractor for the performance of work on the public works project shall include a copy of the provisions of section 56 RFB NO. 23-24-57
TRANSPORTATION OF BIOSOLIDS TO THE TULARE COUNTY LANDFILL (VISALIA WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY)
1771, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1813 and 1815. These labor code sections must be included within or as attachments to the contract.
o The contractor shall continually monitor a subcontractors use of apprentices required to be employed on the public works project pursuant to subdivision (d) of section 1777.5, including, but not limited to, periodic review of the certified payroll of the subcontractor. o Upon becoming aware of a failure of the subcontractor to employ the required number of apprentices, the contractor shall take corrective action, including , but not limited to, retaining funds due to the subcontractor for work performed on the public works project until the failure is corrected.
o Prior to making a final payment to the subcontractor for work performed on the public works project, the contractor shall obtain a declaration signed under penalty of perjury from the subcontractor that the subcontractor has employed the required number of apprentices on the public works project.
❑ The prime contractor is required to provide a signed affidavit declaring their compliance with California Labor Code sections 1771 (prevailing wage) and 1777.5 (apprenticeship) for all workers employed on the contract before final payment will be made on the contract by the City of Visalia.
Contract inclusion and/or attachments: The following item is required to be included either in the body of, as attachments to, or addendums of all public work contracts:
❑ As set forth in CLC section 1773, the City of Visalia shall obtain the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general prevailing rate for holiday and overtime work in the locality in which the public work is to be performed for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the contract from the Director of Industrial Relations. This will include the apprenticeship prevailing wage for all apprenticeable trades. In accordance with labor code section 1773.2, this information is to be included in the contract itself. 10 days before the closing date of the bid, the project manager will review the prevailing wage rates included in any requests for bid proposals for updates and issue an addendum to notify interested bidders of any changes. General prevailing wage determinations made by the director of industrial relations for journeyman and apprentices may be found at:
http://www.dir.ca.gov/OPRL/PWD/index.htm and
http://www.dir.ca.gov/OPRL/PWAppWage/PWAppWageStart.asp IV. INSTRUCTIONS
1. Fill out attached Bid Form (Exhibit “A”) in ink or typewriting completely.
2. Cross out and initial mistakes in ink and place the correct response next to same.
3. Timely submit Bid in a sealed envelope addressed and marked as follows:
To: City of Visalia Purchasing Division
707 W. Acequia Avenue
Visalia, California 93291
From: Bidders Name & Mailing Address
Marked: SEALED BID for Transportation of Biosolids RFB NO. 23-24-57 57 RFB NO. 23-24-57
TRANSPORTATION OF BIOSOLIDS TO THE TULARE COUNTY LANDFILL (VISALIA WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY)
4. Submit each of the required Certifications, Affidavits, Statements and Questionnaires as well as optional waiver(s) to City with the sealed Bid. City will not consider Bids which are not accompanied by the required completed forms.
5. Inquiries: Instructions to Bidder, Specifications and Bid Forms may be obtained by visiting our web site at visaliapurchasing.org or by calling (559) 713-4334, or by FAX.
To prevent misinterpretations, the Purchasing Division would prefer that all questions be sent by email to [email protected]. All questions regarding this project are due by Friday, October 11, 2024.
V. SCOPE OF SERVICES/PROJECT
This request is for an hourly rate to transport approximately 7,000 tons of biosolids from the City of Visalia Water Reclamation Facility located at 7579 Ave 288, Visalia, CA 93277, to the Visalia Disposal Site (Landfill) located at 8614 Ave 328, Visalia, CA 93291. The City will provide equipment and labor to load the biosolids into the transport vehicles. The City will be responsible for disposal fees.
Transportation of the biosolids may be requested one or more times annually, depending on weather conditions and the availability of the landfill to accept specific quantities of the biosolids. The City will coordinate with the Landfill on availability to accept the biosolids and at what quantity prior to contacting the Contractor. In the recent past, the County Landfill has been able to accept a maximum of 300 Tons per day, 3 days per week. The City is hopeful that the County Landfill will continue to accept the same quantities for the upcoming years.
Ideally, the hauling of the dried stockpile is accomplished no later than December 31, 2024 of the following year. Unfortunately, due to the volume, it is sometimes necessary to begin hauling sooner to make more space available for the drying of materials for the current year.
At this time, some of the 2023 stockpile of biosolids have already been transported to the Landfill.
The remaining 2023 stockpile (if any) will need to be removed and transported shortly after this contract is awarded (and no later than December 31, 2024).
It is anticipated that the hauling of the 2024 stockpile will begin in the Spring of 2025 (although it could be required earlier in the year if the stockpile is dry enough. Enough of the stockpile will be removed to create the space needed for the biosolids being generated in 2025.
Note: If the hauling of the 2024 stockpile doesn’t begin until July or August of 2025, the hauling would need to continue until the entire pile is removed or no later than December 31, 2025.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:
Awarded Contractor shall be responsible for transportation of biosolids from the Water Reclamation Facility to the Visalia Disposal Site (landfill). Contractor shall furnish and use, at his own expense, all labor, trucks, trailers and fuel necessary to provide the contractual transportation and disposal of the biosolids. The hourly prices bid for services shall include all labor, equipment, and applicable taxes and fees for transporting and disposal of biosolids at the landfill (excluding the actual dumping fees which are paid by the City).
Awarded Contractor shall have adequate office and personnel resources for responding to City’s needs and shall perform services in a manner commensurate with the highest professional standards, using qualified and experienced personnel. Awarded Contractor shall be responsible for 58 RFB NO. 23-24-57
TRANSPORTATION OF BIOSOLIDS TO THE TULARE COUNTY LANDFILL (VISALIA WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY)
ensuring that all work performed under this contract shall conform to and comply with all applicable safety and motor vehicle regulations as issued by, but not limited to, the Federal Government, the State of California and the City of Visalia.
Awarded Contractor shall give personal attention to the fulfillment of the contract and keep work under their control. No subcontractor will be recognized as such, and all persons engaged in the work will be considered as employees of the Awarded Contractor.
Awarded Contractor shall not perform any additional services related to the contract for which payment is expected without the express written consent of the City of Visalia, prior to the time the extra services are performed or rendered.
CONTRACTOR’S TRUCK/VEHICLE REQUIREMENTS:
Awarded Contractor will need the ability to provide up to 3 dump trucks at a time each day, with a 48-hour notice from the City to commence (or continue) transport services. The billable hourly rate begins when the truck arrives at the City’s Water Reclamation Facility and ends once the truck has reached its point of origin (Contractor’s yard, etc.) after the last dump. Contractor shall bill to the nearest quarter hour. If Awarded Contractor is unable to perform services by requested time, the City reserves the right to request service from other vendors.
Vehicles/Trucks to be used for this bid must be capable of transporting a minimum of 20 tons in a single load. The trucks must be capable of transporting and dumping at the landfill. The responsibility for determining which style of truck and trailer for this type of transport and delivery will be that of the Awarded Contractor.
All vehicles (trucks, etc.) used in the course of fulfilling this contract shall have appropriate company identification, visible to all observers, to identify vehicles as being owned by Awarded Contractor.
All vehicles shall comply with the State of California emission inspection program.
All drivers shall be properly licensed and shall operate vehicles used in the performance of the contract in a safe and prudent manner. Drivers shall refrain from using profane or vulgar language in a public area while performing work under this agreement.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Estimated hours of service and number of trucks per day listed on bid form are given as a basis for bidding purposes only. The City of Visalia does not guarantee that a minimum number of hours will be used. The City reserves the right to increase or decrease amount of hours listed to meet the needs of the City during the period (s) of the contract.
The Bid Form includes an area for Bidding Contractors to include at least three (3) organizations that can be used as references for performance of similar services. Contractors shall endeavor to include references of work performed for public sector agencies. Selected organizations will be contacted to determine the quality of work performed and the personnel assigned to the job.
VI. PRE-BID AND CONTRACT MEETINGS
1. A Non - Mandatory Pre-Bid Meeting. A non-mandatory pre-Bid meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 8, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. and will be held at Visalia Reclamation Facility, 7579 Avenue 288, Visalia, CA Attendance at this meeting is highly recommended but not required to submit a Bid in response to this RFB. Information regarding the project 59 RFB NO. 23-24-57
TRANSPORTATION OF BIOSOLIDS TO THE TULARE COUNTY LANDFILL (VISALIA WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY)
will be provided and time will be set aside for Contractors to ask questions about the work. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to have acquired full knowledge of the job site, scope of work and any problems or difficulties that may affect the work proposed.
2. Post Award Meeting. Subsequent to the award of contract, the Contractor shall meet with the Project Manager prior to the start of work to discuss any problems or questions that may arise. Contractor shall contact the Project Manager within ten (10) days of the date of the Notice to Proceed to arrange this meeting. The notice to process will provide the contact information for the City’s Project Manager.
City Project Manager: Ben Litwack
Department: Public Works
VII. BID OPENING AND CONFIDENTIALITY
1. Bid Opening. Bids shall be opened publicly in the presence of attendees, if any, on Tuesday, October 22, 2024 at 2:00 P.M. at 707 W Acequia, Visalia CA, City Hall.
The name of each Bidder and the amount of each Bid shall be open to public inspection at the Bid opening and after an award decision has been made. Other Bid information will not be available for public review during the evaluation phase.
2. Bid Confidentiality. The City favors full and open disclosure of all Bid records. The City will not expend public funds defending claims for access to, inspection of, or to be provided copies of any such records. By submitting a Bid, a Bidder agrees to indemnify and defend the City against all claims or actions brought against it to seek access to, or compel disclosure of, any records or documents in the City’s possession.
After the award, the City intends that its selection process will be open and public.
Respondents are advised that the California Public Records Act (“PRA”) provides that any person may inspect or be provided a copy of any identifiable public record or document that is not exempted from disclosure by the express provisions of the Act.
The Federal Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) contains a similar provision. Each Bidder shall clearly identify any information within its Bid that it intends to ask the City to withhold as exempt under either the PRA or FOIA. Any information contained in a Bidder’s submission which the Bidder believe qualifies for exemption from public disclosure as “Proprietary” or “Confidential” must be identified as such at the time of first submission of Bidder’s Bid to this RFB. Any failure to identify information contained in a Bidder’s Bid to this RFB as “Proprietary” or “Confidential” shall constitute a waiver of Bidder’s right to object to the release of such information upon request under either Act.
VIII. AWARD
1. Most Responsive, Responsible Bidder. A Contract (substantially similar to that attached hereto as Exhibit “C” with Attachments 1-2) shall be awarded with reasonable promptness by appropriate written notice. Award shall be made to the most responsive, responsible Bidder whose Proposal meets the requirements and criteria set forth in this RFB, price and other factors considered, and whose Bid is determined to result in the optimum economic advantage to the City. A responsible Bidder is one who has the capability, financial capacity and integrity to perform the 60 RFB NO. 23-24-57
TRANSPORTATION OF BIOSOLIDS TO THE TULARE COUNTY LANDFILL (VISALIA WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY)
contract. A responsive Bidder is one who commits to all of the material terms, for example, price, quantity, quality and delivery, of this RFB. Contractor must return a signed copy of the contract provided by the City with its Award Notice to City within ten (10) working days of receipt thereof.
2. Reservation of Rights. The City reserves the right to reject any item or items in the Bid; to waive informalities, technical defects, and minor irregularities in Bids received; and to select the Bid(s) deemed most advantageous to the City.
IX. PROTESTS/APPEALS
Because it is essential that Bidders have confidence in the procurement procedures for soliciting and awarding contracts, it is the policy of the City to offer Bidders the opportunity to appeal award of contracts. The following procedures shall apply in regard to appeals:
1. Any actual Bidder who is aggrieved in connection with this RFB or award of a contract hereunder may protest to the City of Visalia Purchasing Division in writing within five (5) working days after such aggrieved Bidder knows, should have reasonably known, or could reasonably be expected to know of the facts giving rise thereto; and
2. Should identify only the areas regarding bid contradictions, procurement errors, quotation rating discrepancies, legality of procurement context, conflict of interest in the rating process and inappropriate or unfair competitive procurement grievance regarding the Bid process.
3. The City’s Purchasing Division shall have the authority to settle and resolve each protest. The resolution will be provided to Bidder in writing within five (5) working days of receipt of the appeal unless the Bidder is notified more time is required.
4. Further levels of appeal may be made in accordance with the appeals provision contained in Chapter 5 of the City’s “Purchasing and Contract Procedures” which is available through City’s Purchasing Division.
X. SPECIAL CONDITIONS
1. Project Administrative Issues
a. Complete Project. The successful Bidder shall be responsible for providing all materials, labor, equipment and services necessary to fulfill the requirements of this RFB.
b. Quantities/Change Orders. The City reserves and shall have the right to make such changes to the work as may be necessary and desirable to complete the work originally intended in an acceptable manner. Unless otherwise specified herein, the Project Manager shall be and is hereby authorized to make such changes, in the work as may increase or decrease the originally awarded contract quantities and/or total contract cost. The Contract Price, or the amount due the Contractor will only be reduced/increased after the price change is reviewed and authorized by the City of Visalia Change Order Committee.
61 RFB NO. 23-24-57
TRANSPORTATION OF BIOSOLIDS TO THE TULARE COUNTY LANDFILL (VISALIA WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY)
Should the Contractor disagree with any terms or conditions set forth in an approved contract change order not executed by the Contractor, the Contractor shall submit a written protest to the Engineer within 15 days after the receipt of the approved contract change order and the procedures outlined in Section 4-1.03 of the Standard Specifications apply.
If a requested change order is sent back to the Contractor for revisions, the Contractor has 15 (fifteen) calendar days to resubmit.
Changes shall not invalidate the contract nor release the surety, and the Contractor agrees to accept payment for such changes as if the altered work had been a part of the original contract. These changes which are for work within the general scope of the contract shall be covered by Change Orders issued by the City. Change orders for altered work shall include extensions of contract time where, in the Project Manager’s opinion, such extensions are commensurate with the amount and difficulty of added work.
Excessive altered work shall be covered by supplemental agreement that is subject to funding agency approval as applicable. If the City and the Contractor are unable to agree on a unit adjustment for any contract item that requires a supplemental agreement, the City reserves the right to terminate the contract with respect to the item and to make other arrangements for its completion.
c. Omitted Items. Project Manager is authorized to omit minor contract items.
Major items must be omitted by supplemental agreement.
d. Extra Work. Contractor is prohibited from doing extra work, unless authorized in writing by Project Manager before the work is done. The Project Manager should obtain authorization from the Change Order Committee before agreeing to extra work requested by the Contractor. In the instances where it is necessary for the work to be done immediately, the Project Manager may authorize the work prior to taking the additions to the Change Order Committee. Payment for approved Extra Work shall be as agreed to in writing by the Project Manager prior to the Extra Work being completed or the Change Order Committee shall approve an increase in a Change Order issued after the Extra Work is completed. No additional payment is due for unauthorized Extra Work.
If the Project Manager authorizes Extra Work but the payment for the Extra Work has not been agreed to in writing prior to the work being completed, then Contractor shall submit to the Project Manager the documentation required for a Change Order within forty-five (45) days of completing the Extra Work. The Project Manager will submit a Change Order request for review and approval by the Change Order Committee. If the Contractor does not submit any documentation within that time period the Project Manager may move forward with issuing a Change Order to adjust the contract price. e. Removal of Obstructions. Contractor shall remove and dispose of all structures, debris or other obstructions of any character required for completion of the project. Any temporarily removed or relocated items shall be replaced.
62 RFB NO. 23-24-57
TRANSPORTATION OF BIOSOLIDS TO THE TULARE COUNTY LANDFILL (VISALIA WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY)
f. Clean Up. Prior to acceptance and final payment, Contractor shall clean up the site of work, and any areas occupied by Contractor in connection with the project.
2. City-Contractor Relations
a. Project Manager’s Responsibility and Authority. City will designate a Project Manager. All work shall be done under the general supervision of such Project Manager or his or her designee(s). The Project Manager shall decide issues of quality and acceptability of materials, work performance, rate of progress of work, interpretation of drawings and specifications, and all questions related to fulfillment of the contract for the project. Project Manager shall not have control over acts or omissions of the Contractor, Subcontractors, their agents or employees.
b. Contractor/Contractor’s Superintendent. Contractor shall bear all responsibility for, and have all control over, the construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, procedures and safety precautions or programs related to the project. Contractor may designate a superintendent. c. Project Site/Existing Utilities and Structures.
(1) Contractor shall take care to avoid, but shall be responsible for, all damage to existing structures, including, but not limited to, sewers, water service, drains and culverts, underground utilities and the like. (2) USA Notification. Contractor shall notify underground service alert (“USA) of times and locations of proposed excavations.
i. Contractor shall notify owners of and be responsible for damage to utilities and substructures.
ii. If damage occurs to an unknown utility, Contractor shall repair the utility.
iii. Contractor shall not make connection to or draw water from any hydrant or pipeline without first obtaining permission to do so.
d. Signs, Barricades, and Notice. Contractor must provide and maintain proper barricades, fences, signal lights, watchmen, and notice in general to the surrounding public, in accord with local, federal, and state requirements. e. Labor
(1) Workmanship. Workmanship shall be equal to the best general practice of modern day fabrication shops and good construction practice.
(2) Qualification. Contractor shall ensure that each employee who works on this project is qualified to perform their assigned duty in a safe manner.
3. Legal Responsibilities. It is the responsibility of Contractor to comply with all local, state, and federal laws and regulations which apply to this project. This includes, but is not limited to, compliance with Uniform Building, Plumbing, Mechanical, Electric, and Fire Codes. Contractor shall provide a safe working environment in 63 RFB NO. 23-24-57
TRANSPORTATION OF BIOSOLIDS TO THE TULARE COUNTY LANDFILL (VISALIA WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY)
compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and California Health and Safety Codes. Additionally, Contractor shall secure all necessary permits, licenses, and similar requirements to carry out the project. Contractor shall comply with all applicable labor laws, and ensure against discrimination.
XI. GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. It is the policy of the City to provide equal opportunity to all candidates when selecting Bidders to provide public services. Bidders are expected to be equal opportunity employers.
The City hereby affirmatively ensures that Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) will be afforded full opportunity to submit a Bid in response to this notice and will not be discriminated against on the basis of race, color, national origin, ancestry, disability, gender or religion in any consideration leading to the award of contract.
No qualified disabled person shall, on the basis of disability, be excluded from participating in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity that receives or benefits from Federal financial assistance.
Bidder shall provide to the City a list of all instances within the last ten (10) years where a complaint was filed or pending against Bidder in a legal or administrative proceeding alleging that Bidder discriminated against its employees, subcontractors, vendors or suppliers. A description of the status or resolution of that complaint, including any remedial action taken is required.
2. Post-Closing Date Corrections are prohibited.
3. Bids will not be accepted unless signed in ink (not typed) in the appropriate space(s) by an authorized officer or employee of the Bidder.
4. Bids must be submitted on or before the Closing Date. Any Bids received after the Closing Date shall be returned, unopened, to the Bidder, provided the request number, opening date, and Bidder's return address are on the envelope.
5. Bids may be withdrawn prior to the Bid Closing Date by writing to the Purchasing Division.
6. Telegraphic, telephonic, electronic and facsimile Bids and withdrawal requests will not be accepted.
7. Prices submitted are considered accurate for a period of ninety (90) days and cannot be withdrawn after the Closing Date.
8. All Bids are the property of the City after submission.
9. City is not responsible for Bid errors and omissions.
10. Bids should be prepared in a straightforward, concise manner. Information provided which was not specifically requested will be considered only in City’s discretion.
11. A written amendment or addenda issued by City’s Purchasing Division is the only method which should be relied on with respect to changes to the RFB. Respondent is responsible 64 RFB NO. 23-24-57
TRANSPORTATION OF BIOSOLIDS TO THE TULARE COUNTY LANDFILL (VISALIA WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY)
to contact City’s Purchasing Division prior to submitting a Bid to determine if any amendments were made to the RFB.
12. Any contract resulting from the RFB will be jointly administered by the City’s Purchasing Division, and the Department requesting Bids.
13. Prior to conducting business in the City, a business tax certificate (license) must be obtained. Call 559-713-4326 for more information.
14. Bidder shall provide insurance as required by law and as indicated in the proposed contract.
15. Bidder shall maintain all personnel files and payroll records for employees used to implement the proposed contract.
16. Bidder shall withhold, pay and report all taxes and issue W-2 forms at the end of each calendar year for employees used to implement the proposed contract.
17. Pursuant to the City’s Charter, all other things being equal, tie Bids shall be awarded to a local merchant to the extent quality and prices are equal. If neither is a local vendor, the Bid shall be awarded by the flip of a coin by the Purchasing Division in the presence of at least one witness.
18. The City may make such investigation of the Bidder and information in the Bid as it determines necessary. This may include the collection of criminal history information, contractual and business associations and practices, employment histories and reputation.
19. All California agencies may purchase off the Proposal submitted at the same prices, terms, conditions and specifications if agreeable between parties. The City of Visalia shall incur no responsibility in connection with another agency’s purchase.
20. Each Bidder, will be required to submit Certifications, Affidavits, Assurances, Statements and Questionnaires which are attached in Exhibit “B”.
21. The quantities given on the Bid Proposal form and any related contract documents are approximate only. They are given as a basis for comparison of Bids. The City of Visalia does not, expressly or impliedly agree that the actual amount of work will correspond therewith, but reserves the right to increase or decrease the amount of any class or portion of work, or to omit portion of the work, as the City deems necessary or advisable, at the prices Bid.
22. Bidders shall satisfy themselves by personal examination of the work site, specifications, plans, and other contract documents, and by any other means as they believe necessary, as to the actual physical conditions, requirements, and difficulties under which the project must be performed. The submission of a Bid shall be conclusive evidence that the Bidder has investigated, and is satisfied as to the conditions encountered, as to the character, quality, and quantities of work to be performed, and the materials to be furnished, and as to the requirements of the RFB and the City. No allowance shall subsequently be made because of lack of such examination or knowledge.
23. All Bidders are required to make a Bid on the complete Bid Form (Exhibit “A”). Contractor may be required to submit Proposals on alternate items. The City reserves the right to 65 RFB NO. 23-24-57
TRANSPORTATION OF BIOSOLIDS TO THE TULARE COUNTY LANDFILL (VISALIA WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY)
award to the contract based on the lowest combination or combinations of Proposal items and alternate proposed items.
24. No mention shall be made in the Proposal of sales tax, use tax or any other tax, as all amounts Bid will be deemed and held to include any such taxes, which may be applicable.
25. Only one Bid may be submitted as a “Prime Contractor” for the same work by any firm, individual, partnership, corporation or combination thereof. A Contractor submitting a Bid as a Prime Contractor may not also submit sub-Bids to other competing Prime Contractors. Reasonable grounds for believing that any individual, firm, partnership, corporation or combination thereof is interested in more than one Proposal for the work contemplated will cause the rejection of all Proposals in which such individual, firm, partnership, corporation or combination thereof is interested. A Contractor who is not submitting a Bid as a Prime Contractor may submit any number of sub-Bids to competing Prime Contractors.
26. The City of Visalia is not liable for any costs incurred by Bidder in responding to this Request for Bid.
27. The annual contract resulting from this invitation to bid will be administered by the Public Works Department. However, the cities Purchasing Division shall be the final judge concerning issues or matters related to contract interpretation or problems regarding the terms, conditions or scope of the contract.
28. The initial contract term shall be for a twelve (12) month period and shall, at the City’s option and with the consent of the CONTRACTOR, be extended annually thereafter for four (4) consecutive one-year periods. Contract shall be begin no later than 15 days from the receipt of annual contract.
29. All prices quoted in response to this Invitation to Bid shall be firm and fixed for twelve (12) months from the annual anniversary date of the agreement. In order to protect the interests of the City and to give the vendor a reasonable basis for bidding, a price adjustment feature is hereby incorporated into the specifications. Prices bid by vendor may be adjusted annually at time of contract renewal and upon mutual agreement of the parties to the contract to allow for price increases or decreases for labor and benefit rates, supplies and materials.
It will be the responsibility of the contractor to request a price adjustment and to provide all documentation necessary. The request for price adjustment must be submitted to the Project Manager at least thirty (30) days (but no sooner than ninety (90) days) prior to the annual anniversary date of the agreement. Requests filed after this time period will not be considered.
The unit prices for the ensuing contracts shall be based on the movement of the unadjusted figures of the U.S. Department of Labor Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U All Cities Average). The contract unit prices may be changed in an amount equal to the percentage of movement for the most recent twelve-month period closest to the annual anniversary date of contract. In no instance shall the price increase exceed 5%. The contract unit price changes as a result of this formula shall be binding on the contractor for the subsequent contract year. The adjustment of the unit bid price shall not be retroactive and shall apply only to changes incurred after approval. 66 RFB NO. 23-24-57
TRANSPORTATION OF BIOSOLIDS TO THE TULARE COUNTY LANDFILL (VISALIA WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY)
30. This contract may be terminated without cause by the City, in whole or in part, by giving the Contractor fifteen (15) days written notice of the intent to terminate whenever the City determines that termination is in the best interest of the City.
If the Contractor shall fail to provide services or perform satisfactorily the work required by the terms and conditions of the contract, or materially breaches any of its obligations under this agreement the City may terminate the contract, in whole or in part by written notice. Termination shall take effect ten (10) calendar days after the date of mailing said termination notice
Any assignment, subletting or transfer of the interest of the contractor, either in whole or in part, without the written consent of the City shall be cause for the City to immediately terminate the agreement for default.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this agreement, this agreement may be terminated by the City upon a single violation of this agreement.
XII. POST AWARD RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Written Contract with City. A written agreement in a form similar to that attached to this Request for Bid as Exhibit “C” with Attachments 1-2 must be entered into between the City and the Contractor to whom the project is awarded. The Agreement forms the basis for the contractual obligation between the parties regarding the project. A contract will be provided with the Notice of Award and must be executed and returned to City within ten (10) working days of the date of award notification unless otherwise agreed.
2. Post-Award Responsibilities. Upon execution of the Agreement between the City and the Contractor, the Contractor shall immediately report all changes in its Articles of Incorporation, By-Laws, or Tax-Exempt status to the City.
3. Insurance. Contractor shall obtain and maintain the minimum insurance coverage outlined Exhibit “C”, Attachment 2. Contractor shall provide evidence of such insurance to City’s Purchasing Division prior to commencement of work.
Upon determination by the City that a contract has been entered and Contractor has provided all of the information that it is required to provide pursuant to this RFB, City will issue, in writing, a notice to proceed on the project to Contractor. 67 RFB NO. 23-24-57
TRANSPORTATION OF BIOSOLIDS TO THE TULARE COUNTY LANDFILL (VISALIA WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY)
Bidding Agency:_________________
EXHIBIT “A”
BID FORM RFB NO. 23-24-57
ANNUAL CONTRACT TO TRANSPORT BIOSOLIDS
FROM VISALIA WRF TO TULARE COUNTY LANDFILL
TO: THE CITY OF VISALIA PURCHASING DIVISION:
In compliance with the City’s Notice Inviting Sealed Bids No. 23-24-57 dated: __________, the undersigned BIDDER hereby proposes to furnish all materials, equipment, tools, labor appurtenances and incidentals required for the above stated project as set forth in the RFB, including all Exhibits and related contract documents therefore, and to perform all work in the manner and time prescribed therein.
BIDDER declares that this proposal is based upon careful examination of the work site, Instructions to BIDDERs, and the contract requirements. If this proposal is accepted for award, BIDDER agrees to enter into a contract with CITY at the hourly rate set forth in the following Bid Schedule.
BIDDER understands that a bid is required for the entire work and that final compensation under the contract will be based upon the actual quantities of work satisfactorily completed. It is agreed that all prices bid include all appurtenant expenses, taxes, royalties and fees. All bids will be checked for accuracy. In the case of discrepancies in amounts bid, unit prices shall govern over extended amounts.
BIDDER understands that this is considered a public works contract, subject to State and other requirements, including payment of prevailing wages, registration with the Department of Industrial Relations, uploading of certified payroll to the Labor Commissioner and other requirements that are outlined in the RFB and City of Visalia Labor Compliance Manual, which are made a part of this contract.
BIDDER hereby agrees to execute a contract within ten (10) working days, or such further time as may be allowed in writing by the Purchasing Division, after receiving notification of the acceptance of this Bid, and it is hereby mutually understood and agreed that in case the BIDDER does not, said Purchasing Division may proceed to award the contract to others.
BIDDER agrees to commence the work on the start date agreed between BIDDER and Project Manager, only after the contract is fully executed and Notice to Proceed has been issued.
BIDDER further declares that he/she has not either directly or indirectly entered into any agreement, participated in any collusion, or otherwise taken any action in restraint of free competitive bidding in connection with said bid.
Low Bidder shall be based on the Lowest Total Bid Price. Award, if made, will be to the lowest bidder whose bid is deemed to be both responsive and responsible and meets all criteria specified in the RFB.
Quantities given on the Bid Proposal form and any related contract documents are estimates only. They are given as a basis for comparison of Bids. The City of Visalia does not, expressly or impliedly agree that the actual amount of work will correspond therewith and reserves the right to increase or decrease the amount of any class or portion of work, or to omit portion of the work, as the City deems necessary or advisable, at the prices Bid.
BIDDER has read and hereby agrees to the conditions stated in this proposal by affixing his/her signature on the Bid Form.
All bids will be checked for accuracy. In the case of discrepancy in amounts bid, unit pricing (hourly rate) shall prevail over extended amounts.
68 RFB NO. 23-24-57
TRANSPORTATION OF BIOSOLIDS TO THE TULARE COUNTY LANDFILL (VISALIA WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY)
Prices bid include all costs for labor, materials, equipment, tools, transportation, fuel and taxes (excludes dump fees as those are paid by the City).
Bidder Instructions:
1. Provide hourly rate in column A
2. Calculate Column D as follows: Column A X Column B X Column C = Column D Transport Biosolids
from Visalia WRF to
Tulare County Landfill
per specifications of
RFB-23-24-57
A
Hourly Rate
Per Truck
x B
Estimated # of
Trucks Required
Per Day
x C
Estimated
Hours Per
Day
= D
Cost Per Day
$__________hr.
(per hour, per truck)
x 3 x 8 hrs.
=
$__________________
Total Bid Price
(1)__________________________________________________________________________________________ Bidding Firm
(2)__________________________________________________________________________________________ Corporation, Partner, Joint Venture
(3)__________________________________________________________________________________________ Business Address City State Zip Code
___________________________________________________________________________________________ Telephone Number Fax Number E-mail Address
(4)_________________________________________________________________________________________ Signature of Authorized Person (Date) Type or Print Authorized Person’s Name
PLEASE SEE THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING SIGNATURE (1) If the BIDDER is an individual, enter name here in style used in business; if a joint venture, exact name of entities joining in the venture; if a partnership, the correct trade style of the partnership; if a corporation, the exact name of the corporation.
(2) If BIDDER is other than an individual, identify here its character, i.e., joint venture, partnership, corporation, including the state of incorporation. If BIDDER is an individual operating under a trade name, state “an individual dba (trade name in full)”.
(3) State on this line, the address to which all communications and notices regarding the Bid Proposal, and any contract awarded thereunder, are to be addressed.
(4) If BIDDER is a joint venture, signature must be by one of the joint venturers, and if one or both of the joint venturers is a partnership or a corporation, each participating partnership must sign by a general partner, and each corporation by an authorized officer or employee; if a partnership, by a general partner; if a corporation, by an authorized officer or employee. The title of the person signing must appear after his/her signature. Where BIDDER is a partnership or corporation, the names of all other general partners, or the president or secretary of the corporation and their business addresses must be shown below.
Note: All names must be typewritten under written signature. All Addresses must be complete with street number, city, state and zip code.
69 RFB NO. 23-24-57
TRANSPORTATION OF BIOSOLIDS TO THE TULARE COUNTY LANDFILL (VISALIA WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY)
BIDDING AGENCY:_________________
BIDDING CONTRACTOR’S LICENSE INFORMATION:
STATE CONTRACTOR’S LIC. CLASS:_________________ # _____________________________EXP. DATE:___________ STATE D.I.R. REGISTRATION #______________________________________________________ FEDERAL TAX I.D. #______________________________________ CITY OF VISALIA BUSINESS TAX CERTIFICATE #__________________________________(A City Business Tax Certificate (license) is not required to submit a bid; however, vendor is required to obtain a City License prior to commencement of work or if vendor is presently transacting business within the City of Visalia, regardless of whether the business address is actually located within the City.
Contact the business License Division for clarification of questions at 559-713-4326.
CONTRACTOR’S REFERENCES: The following are the names, addresses, and telephone numbers for at least three (3) agencies for which BIDDER has performed work similar in size and scope within the past two (2) years.
REFERENCE 1
NAME OF AGENCY:__________________________________________________CONTACT PERSON:_____________________ AGENCY ADDRESS:_________________________________________________PHONE #:_______________________________ REFERENCE 2
NAME OF AGENCY:__________________________________________________CONTACT PERSON:____________________ AGENCY ADDRESS:_________________________________________________PHONE #:_______________________________ REFERENCE 3
NAME OF AGENCY:__________________________________________________CONTACT PERSON:_____________________ AGENCY ADDRESS:_________________________________________________PHONE #:_______________________________
DESIGNATION OF SURETIES
The following are the names, addresses, and telephone numbers for all brokers and sureties from whom BIDDER intends to procure insurance.
COMPANY NAME:_______________________________________________TYPE OF INSURANCE:_______________________ ADDRESS:_____________________________________________TELEPHONE#_______________________________ COMPANY NAME:_______________________________________________TYPE OF INSURANCE:_______________________ ADDRESS:_____________________________________________TELEPHONE#_______________________________ COMPANY NAME:_______________________________________________TYPE OF INSURANCE:_______________________ ADDRESS:_____________________________________________TELEPHONE#_______________________________ Submit with Proposal
70 RFB NO. 23-24-57
TRANSPORTATION OF BIOSOLIDS TO THE TULARE COUNTY LANDFILL (VISALIA WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY)
EXHIBIT “B-1”
BIDDER’S STATEMENT ON PREVIOUS CONTRACTS
SUBJECT TO EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY CLAUSE
(EXECUTIVE ORDER 11426)
The BIDDER shall complete the following statement by checking the appropriate blanks:
The BIDDER has_____ has not _____ participated in a previous contract subject to the Equal Employment Opportunity Clause prescribed by Executive Order 11246, as amended, of September 24, 1965.
The BIDDER has _____ has not _____ submitted all compliance reports in connection with any such contract due under the applicable filing requirements; and that representations indicating submission of required compliance reports signed by proposed subBIDDERs will be awarded prior to award of subcontracts.
If the BIDDER has participated in previous contracts subject to the Equal Employment Opportunity Clause and has not submitted compliance reports due under applicable filing requirements, the BIDDER shall submit a compliance report on Standard Form 100, “Employee Information Report EEOI” prior to award of the contract.
Note: Failure to complete the blanks may be grounds for rejecting the bid.
Company: ______________________________________________ Business Address: ______________________________________________ Signature: ______________________________________________ Name of Signing Official: ______________________________________________ Title of Signing Official: ______________________________________________ Date: ______________________________________________
Company Seal (if any):
71 RFB NO. 23-24-57
TRANSPORTATION OF BIOSOLIDS TO THE TULARE COUNTY LANDFILL (VISALIA WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY)
Submit with Bid
EXHIBIT “B-2”
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE
(EXECUTIVE ORDER 11246)
Equal Opportunity Clause
Unless exempted by rules, regulations or orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to Executive Orders 10925, 11114 or Section 204 of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, during the performance of each contract with the City of Visalia, the BIDDER agrees as follows:
1. The BIDDER will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, gender, national origin or political affiliation. The BIDDER will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, gender, national origin or political affiliation. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The BIDDER agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the contracting officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause.
2. The BIDDER will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees, placed by or on behalf of the BIDDER, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, gender, national origin or political affiliation.
3. The BIDDER will send to each labor union or representative of workers with which he has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding, a notice to be provided by the agency contracting officer, advising the labor union or the workers’ representative of the BIDDER’s commitments under Section 202 of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and shall post copies of the notice on conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment.
4. The BIDDER will comply with all provisions of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and the rules, regulations and relevancy orders of the Secretary of Labor.
5. The BIDDER will furnish all information and reports required by Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and by the rules, regulations and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor, or pursuant thereto, and will permit access to his books, records and accounts by the contracting agency and the Secretary of Labor for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with such rules, regulations and orders.
6. In the event of the BIDDER’s non-compliance with the non-discrimination clauses of this subcontract or with any of such rules, regulations or orders, this subcontract may be canceled, terminated or suspended, in whole, or in part and the BIDDER may be declared ineligible for further government contracts in accordance with the procedures authorized in accordance with Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and such other sanctions may be imposed and remedies invoked as provided in Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, or by rule, regulation or order of the Secretary of Labor, or otherwise provided by law.
7. The BIDDER will include the provisions of Paragraphs (1) through (7) in every subcontract or purchase order unless exempted by rules, regulations or orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to Section 204 of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, so that such provisions will be binding upon each SUBBIDDER or vendor. The BIDDER will take such action with respect to any subcontract or purchase order as the contracting agency may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions including sanctions for non-compliance. Provided, however, that in the event the BIDDER becomes involved in, or is threatened with litigation with a SUBBIDDER or vendor as a result of such direction by the contracting agency, the BIDDER may request the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interest of the United States.
Company Name:__________________________________ Date:____________________________ Business Address:_________________________________________ Signature: _______________________________________ Name of Signing Official (Print or Type):_____________________________________________ Title of Signing Official: ______________________________________________ Company Seal (if any):
72 RFB NO. 23-24-57
TRANSPORTATION OF BIOSOLIDS TO THE TULARE COUNTY LANDFILL (VISALIA WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY)
Submit with Proposal
EXHIBIT “B-3”
CERTIFICATE OF NONSEGREGATED FACILITIES
(BIDDERS/SUBCONTRACTORS)
1. “Segregated facilities,” as used in this provision, means any waiting rooms, work areas, rest rooms and wash rooms, restaurants and other eating areas, time clocks, locker rooms and other storage or dressing areas, parking lots, drinking fountains, recreation or entertainment areas, transportation, and housing facilities provided for employees, that are segregated by explicit directive or are in fact segregated on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin, because of habit, local custom, or otherwise.
2. By the submission of a bid, the BIDDER certifies that it does not and will not maintain or provide for its employees any segregated facilities at any of its establishments, and that it does not and will not permit its employees to perform their services at any location under its control where segregated facilities are maintained. The BIDDER agrees that a breach of this certification is a violation of the Equal Opportunity clause in the contract.
3. By submission of the bid, the BIDDER further agrees that (except where it has obtained identical certifications from proposed SUBCONTRACTORs for specific time periods) it will:
(a) Obtain identical certifications from proposed SUBCONTRACTORs before the award of subcontracts under which the SUB-BIDDER will be subject to the Equal Opportunity clause;
(b) Retain such certifications in its files; and
(c) Forward this certification and the following notice to the proposed SUBCONTRACTORs:
NOTICE OF PROSPECTIVE SUBCONTRACTORS OF REQUIREMENT
FOR CERTIFICATION OF NONSEGREGATED FACILITIES
A certificate of Nonsegregated Facilities must be submitted before the award of a subcontract under which the SUBCONTRACTOR will be subject to the equal Opportunity clause. The certification may be submitted either for each SUBCONTRACTOR for all subcontracts during a period (i.e., quarterly, semi-annually, or annually).
4. By commencing performance of the Contract work, the selected BIDDER certifies to the Nonsegregated Facilities provisions above.
Company:____________________________________________________________________ Business Address: ____________________________________________________________________ Signature:________________________________________ Date:________________________________ Name of Signing Official (Print or Type) :________________________________ Title of Signing Official:__________________________________ _Company Seal (if any):
73 RFB NO. 23-24-57
TRANSPORTATION OF BIOSOLIDS TO THE TULARE COUNTY LANDFILL (VISALIA WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY)
EXHIBIT “B-4” Submit with Proposal
NON-COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss
CITY OF VISALIA )
_________________________, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he or she is _________ of __________ the party making the foregoing Bid; that the Bid is not made in the interest of, or on behalf of, any undisclosed person, partnership, company, association, organization, or corporation; that the Bid is genuine and not collusive or sham; that the BIDDER has not directly or indirectly induced or solicited any other BIDDER to put in a false or sham Bid, and has not directly or indirectly colluded, conspired, connived, or agreed with any BIDDER or anyone else to put in a sham Bid, or that anyone shall refrain from Bidding; that the BIDDER has not in any manner, directly or indirectly, sought by agreement, communication, or conference with anyone to fix the Bid price of the BIDDER or any other BIDDER, or to fix any overhead, profit, or cost element of the Bid price, or of that of any other BIDDER, or to secure any advantage against the public body awarding the contract of anyone interested in the proposed contract; that all statements contained in the Bid are true; and, further, that the BIDDER has not, directly or indirectly, submitted his or her Bid price or any breakdown thereof, or the contents thereof, or divulged information or data relative thereto, or paid, and will not pay, any fee to any corporation, partnership, company association, organization, bid depository, or to any member or agent thereof to effectuate a collusive or sham Bid.
Company: ______________________________________________ Business Address: ______________________________________________ Signature: ______________________________________________ Name of Signing Official: ______________________________________________ Title of Signing Official: ______________________________________________ Date: ______________________________________________
Company Seal (if any):
State of California
County of ________________________
On this __________ day of _______________before me, ___________________________________________, a Notary Public,
personally appeared ____________________________________________,who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature __________________________________ (Seal)
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. 74 RFB NO. 23-24-57
TRANSPORTATION OF BIOSOLIDS TO THE TULARE COUNTY LANDFILL (VISALIA WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY)
Submit with Proposal
EXHIBIT “B-5”
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE CERTIFICATE
(CALIF. LABOR CODE § 3700)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss
CITY OF VISALIA )
I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work under this contract.
Company: ______________________________________________ Business Address: ______________________________________________ Signature: ______________________________________________ Name of Signing Official: ______________________________________________ Title of Signing Official: ______________________________________________ Date: ______________________________________________
Company Seal (if any):
75 RFB NO. 23-24-57
TRANSPORTATION OF BIOSOLIDS TO THE TULARE COUNTY LANDFILL (VISALIA WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY)
Submit with Proposal
EXHIBIT “B-6”
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE
By submission of a bid, the BIDDER certifies it will comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C., 12101 et. seq., and will maintain compliance throughout the life of this Contract.
By commencing performance of the Contract work, the selected BIDDER certifies to the Americans with Disabilities Act compliance.
Company: ______________________________________________ Business Address: ______________________________________________ Signature: ______________________________________________ Name of Signing Official: ______________________________________________ Title of Signing Official: ______________________________________________ Date: ______________________________________________
Company Seal (if any):
76 RFB NO. 23-24-57
TRANSPORTATION OF BIOSOLIDS TO THE TULARE COUNTY LANDFILL (VISALIA WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY)
EXHIBIT “B-7”
The following disclosure and statement apply to the Bidder/Proposer/Contractor/Consultant/ Vendor/Supplier or Company:
1. submitting a bid or proposal in response to a solicitation by City of Visalia; or
2. as Awardee of a contract/purchase order which is subject to approval by the Visalia City Council.
OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE
____________________________________________________________________________ Name of Bidder/Proposer/Contractor/Consultant/Vendor/Supplier or Company _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Address
List the names of all principals, partners, and/or trustees. For corporations, provide names of officers, directors and all stockholders owning more than 10% equity interest in corporation:
______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
CALIFORNIA LEVINE ACT STATEMENT
California Government Code Section 84308, also know as the “Levine Act,” can prohibit members of the Visalia City Council from participating in any action related to a contract if he or she receives any political contributions totaling more than $250 within the previous twelve (12) months, and for twelve (12) months following the date a final decision concerning the contract has been made, from the person or company awarded the contract.
The Levine Act also requires disclosure of such contribution(s) by a party to be awarded a specific contract.
The following website contains a list of current Visalia City Council Members, https://www.visalia.city/government/city_council/default.asp. You are responsible for reviewing the names of Visalia City Council Members prior to making the following disclosure:
1. Have you or your company, or any agent on behalf of you or your company, made any political contributions of more than $250 to a Visalia City Council Member in the twelve (12) months preceding the date of the submission of your proposals or the anticipated date of any City Council action related to this contract? YES:_____ NO:_____. If yes, please identify the City Council Member(s) and date(s) of contribution in the space below:
Council Member(s) Name Date of Contribution(s)
Answering YES, does not preclude the City of Visalia from awarding a contract to your firm or from taking any subsequent action related to the contract. It does, however, preclude the identified Visalia City Council Member(s) from participating in any actions related to this contract.
NOTICE: The disclosure duty under state law continues for twelve (12) months after the award. If the above information regarding contributions changes during this time after the award, then the awardee is required to update this disclosure form.
____________________________________________________________________________ Print or Type Name of Bidder/Proposer/Contractor/Consultant/Supplier/Vendor/Company __________________________________________ _____________________________ Signature of Company Authorized Individual Print or Type Name of Authorized Individual 77 RFB NO. 23-24-57
TRANSPORTATION OF BIOSOLIDS TO THE TULARE COUNTY LANDFILL (VISALIA WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY)
Submit with Proposal
EXHIBIT “B-8”
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE CERTIFICATION
STD.21 (REV.12-93)
I, the official named below, hereby swear that I am duly authorized legally to bind the contractor or grant recipient to the certification described below. I am fully aware that this certification, executed on the date below, is made under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California.
CONTRACTOR/BIDDER FIRM NAME FEDERAL ID NUMBER
BY(Authorized Signature) DATE EXECUTED
PRINTED NAME OF PERSON SIGNING TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include Area Code)
( )
TITLE
CONTRACTOR/BIDDER FIRM’S MAILING ADDRESS
The contractor or grant recipient named above hereby certifies compliance with Government Code Section 8355 in matters relating to providing a drug-free workplace. The above named contractor or grant recipient will:
1. Publish a statement notifying employees that unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensation, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited and specifying actions to be taken against employees for violations, as required by Government Code Section 8355(a).
2. Establish a Drug-Free Awareness Program as required by Government Code Section 8355(b), to inform employees about all of the following:
(a) The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace,
(b) The person’s or organization’s policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace, (c) Any available counseling, rehabilitation and employee assistance programs, and (d) Penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations.
3. Provide as required by Government Code Section 8355©, that every employee who works on the proposed contract or grant:
(a) Will receive a copy of the company’s drug-free workplace policy statement, and (b) Will agree to abide by the terms of the company’s statement as a condition of employment on the contract or grant.
4. At the election of the contractor or grantee, from and after the “Date Executed” and until ____________ (NOT TO EXCEED 36 MONTHS), the state will regard this certificate as valid for all contracts or grants entered into between the contractor or grantee and this state agency without requiring the contractor or grantee to provide a new and individual certificate for each contract or grant. If the contractor or grantee elects to fill in the blank date, than the terms and conditions of this certificate shall have the same force, meaning effect and enforceability as if a certificate were separately, specifically, and individually provided for each contract or grant between the contractor or grantee and this state agency.
78 RFB NO. 23-24-57
TRANSPORTATION OF BIOSOLIDS TO THE TULARE COUNTY LANDFILL (VISALIA WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY)
EXHIBIT “B-9” Submit with Bid
IRAN CONTRACTING ACT CERTIFICATION
(Public Contract Code Section 2200 et seq.)
As required by California Public Contract Code Section 2204, the Contractor certifies subject to penalty for perjury that the option checked below relating to the Contractor’s status in regard to the Iran Contracting Act of 2010 (Public Contract Code Section 2200 et seq.) is true and correct:
⃝ The Contractor is not:
(1) Identified on the current list of persons and entities engaged in investment activities in Iran prepared by the California Department of General Services in accordance with subdivision (b) of Public Contract Code Section 2203; or
(2) A financial institution that extends, for 45 days or more, credit in the amount of $20,000,000 or more to any other person or entity identified on the current list of persons and entities engaging in investment activities in Iran prepared by the California Department of General Services in accordance with subdivision (b) of Public Contract Code Section 2203, if that person or entity uses or will use the credit to provide goods or services in the energy sector in Iran. ⃝ The City has exempted the Contractor from the requirements of the Iran Contracting Act of 2010 after making a public finding that, absent the exemption, the City will be unable to obtain the goods and/or services to be provided pursuant to the Contract. ⃝ The amount of the Contract payable to the Contractor for the Project does not exceed $1,000,000 over the life of the contract (up to 5 years).
Signature:________________________________ Printed Name:_______________________ Title:____________________________________ Agency Name:_________________________ Date:____________________
Note: In accordance with Public Contract Code Section 2205, false certification of this form shall be reported to the California Attorney General and may result in civil penalties equal to the greater of $250,000 or twice the Contract amount, termination of the Contract and/or eligibility to bid on contracts for three years. 79 RFB NO. 23-24-57
TRANSPORTATION OF BIOSOLIDS TO THE TULARE COUNTY LANDFILL (VISALIA WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY)
EXHIBIT “C” (SAMPLE – do not submit with bid)
ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR TRANSPORTATION OF BIOSOLIDS
FROM WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY TO TULARE COUNTY LANDFILL (City of Visalia Bid No. 23-24-57)
This Agreement, entered into and effective this ________ day of ________________, 2024 [“Effective Date”], by and between the City of Visalia, hereinafter referred to as the “CITY”, and ____________________________ hereinafter referred to as the “CONTRACTOR”, “BIDDER”, or “SUBRECIPIENT”.
R E C I T A L S
WHEREAS, CONTRACTOR is an ____________________ (insert individual or entity type) with a primary business address of ____________________ and SSN or EIN: ____________________; and WHEREAS, CITY is a municipal corporation and Charter Law City; and WHEREAS, CITY desires to enter into an annual contract for the project work as evidenced by the solicitation of Request for Bids No. 23-24-57; and
WHEREAS, City of Visalia reviewed and evaluated responses to the Bid and determined to award an annual contract to CONTRACTOR for the Project; and
WHEREAS, CONTRACTOR represents it is licensed, qualified and willing to complete the Project pursuant to terms and conditions of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, CITY and CONTRACTOR agree as follows:
1. TERM:
The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and expire upon completion of all obligations of the parties, unless earlier terminated by the parties. The initial contract term shall be for a twelve (12) month period and shall, at the City’s option and with the consent of the CONTRACTOR, be extended annually thereafter for four (4) consecutive one-year periods. "Additionally, this Agreement may be terminated for convenience. In the event of termination or expiration of this Agreement, CONTRACTOR shall transfer to CITY any funds and/or accounts receivable on hand attributable to the use of CITY funds.
2. ATTACHMENTS INCORPORATED:
The following are attachments for this Agreement. Said attachments are incorporated into this Agreement as if included in full in the body:
ATTACHMENT NO. DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHMENT
Attachment 1 General Contract Provisions
Attachment 2 Insurance Requirements
Attachment 3 City of Visalia Bid 23-24-57, Annual Contract for Transportation of Biosolids from City’s Water Reclamation Facility to Tulare County Landfill Attachment 4 CONTRACTOR’s bid in response to Bid No. 23-24-57
3. CONTRACTOR SCOPE OF SERVICES and COMMITMENTS*:
CONTRACTOR shall provide the following services for the stated compensation on or before the stated completion dates (“Scope of Services”):
80 RFB NO. 23-24-57
TRANSPORTATION OF BIOSOLIDS TO THE TULARE COUNTY LANDFILL (VISALIA WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY)
All work described in Scope of Services in Bid No. 23-24-57.
4. CITY COMMITMENTS:
CITY shall perform the following tasks on or before the stated completion dates:
TASK COMPLETION DATE
Pay Contractor as work is completed and invoiced As requested by Contractor
5. COMPENSATION:
CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR compensation for services as indicated in Paragraph 4 above; however, CITY shall pay not more than the following amount as total compensation under this Agreement, unless otherwise agreed in writing. Such sum shall be expended and paid by CITY on a reimbursement basis for services actually performed based on invoices, receipts, time sheets and similar documents presented by CONTRACTOR to CITY.
6. CONTRACT PRICE ADJUSTMENTS:
All prices shall be firm and fixed for twelve (12) months from the annual anniversary date of the agreement. Prices may be adjusted annually at time of contract renewal and upon mutual agreement of the parties. It will be the responsibility of the contractor to request a price adjustment and to provide all documentation necessary. The request for price adjustment must be submitted to the Project Manager at least thirty (30) days (but no sooner than ninety (90) days) prior to the annual anniversary date of the agreement as specified in the General Conditions of RFB 23-24-57.
The unit prices for the ensuing contracts shall be based on the movement of the unadjusted figures of the U.S. Department of Labor Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U All Cities Average). The contract unit prices may be changed in an amount equal to the percentage of movement for the most recent twelve-month period.
In no instance shall the price increase exceed 5%. The contract unit price changes as a result of this formula shall be binding on the contractor for the subsequent contract year. The adjustment of the unit bid price shall not be retroactive and shall apply only to changes incurred after approval.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed on the day and year first above written.
CONTRACTOR
Dated: ___________________ By:______________________________________________________ Authorized Officer: I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I am fully authorized to execute this Agreement for CONTRACTOR in the capacity I have stated, and that such execution is sufficient to bind the CONTRACTOR.
CITY OF VISALIA
Dated: ____________________ By:______________________________________________________ City Manager
Total Compensation: Not to Exceed $_________________annually at Contractor’s hourly rates bid.
Source of Funds: Local Revenues
Payment Schedule: Within 30 days from date of invoice for completed work 81 RFB NO. 23-24-57
TRANSPORTATION OF BIOSOLIDS TO THE TULARE COUNTY LANDFILL (VISALIA WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY)
Dated: ____________________ By:______________________________________________________ City Attorney
Dated: ____________________ By:______________________________________________________ City of Visalia Risk Manager
Dated: ____________________ By:______________________________________________________ City of Visalia Project Manager
82 RFB NO. 23-24-57
TRANSPORTATION OF BIOSOLIDS TO THE TULARE COUNTY LANDFILL (VISALIA WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY)
EXHIBIT “C, Attachment 1”
GENERAL CONTRACT PROVISIONS
A. Successors and Assigns: This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of any successors to or assigns of the parties.
B. Prohibition of Assignment: Neither party shall assign, delegate or transfer their rights and duties in this Agreement without the written consent of the other party.
C. Notices: Notice shall be sufficient hereunder if personally served upon the City Clerk of the CITY or an officer or principal of the CONTRACTOR, or if sent via the United States Postal Service, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
CITY OF VISALIA CONTRACTOR__________________________________ 707 W. Acequia Ave. __________________________________
Visalia, CA 93291 __________________________________
Attention: City Clerk Attention: ________________________ D. Independent Contractor: It is understood and agreed by the parties herein that CONTRACTOR, in the performance of this Agreement, shall act as an independent contractor, and therefore shall obtain no rights to any fringe benefits that accrue to regular full-time CITY employees.
E. Jurisdiction/Venue/Waiver Of Removal: This Agreement shall be administered and interpreted under the laws of the State of California. Jurisdiction of litigation arising from this Agreement shall be in California. Any action brought to interpret or enforce this Agreement, or any of the terms or conditions hereof, shall be brought in Tulare County, California. The CONTRACTOR hereby expressly waives any right to remove any action to a county other than Tulare County as permitted pursuant to Section 394 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.
F. Integration/Modification: This Agreement and each of the documents and exhibits or attachments referenced herein, which are incorporated by reference, represents the entire understanding of the parties as to those matters contained herein. No prior oral or written understanding shall be of any force or effect with respect to those matters covered hereunder. This Agreement may not be modified or altered except in writing signed by the parties, unless otherwise explicitly authorized.
G. Conflict With Law: If any part of this Agreement is found to be in conflict with applicable laws, such part shall be inoperative, null and void insofar as it is in conflict with said law, but the remainder of the Agreement shall be in full force and effect.
H. Indemnification: The CONTRACTOR waives any and all claims and recourse against the CITY, including the right of contribution of loss or damage to person or property arising from, growing out of, or in any way connected with or incidental to the CONTRACTOR’s performance of this Agreement, except claims arising from the concurrent or sole negligence of the CITY or its officers, agents or employees. The CONTRACTOR will indemnify, hold harmless, and defend (at CITY’s option) the CITY against any and all claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses, or liability arising out of the CONTRACTOR’s performance of this Agreement except for liability arising out of the concurrent or sole negligence of the CITY or its officers, agents, or employees.
I. Attorney’s Fees: In the event either party commences any action, arbitration or legal proceedings for the enforcement of this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by 83 RFB NO. 23-24-57
TRANSPORTATION OF BIOSOLIDS TO THE TULARE COUNTY LANDFILL (VISALIA WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY)
the court or arbitrator, shall be entitled to recovery of its attorney’s fees and court costs incurred in the action brought thereon.
J. Headings: Section headings are provided for organizational purposes only and do not in any manner affect the scope or intent of the provisions thereunder.
K. Firearms Prohibited: Guns may not be carried by contractors/vendors/consultants while working on City of Visalia premises without the expressed written approval of a City of Visalia Department Head, or an exemption in the contract. If a contractor/vendor/consultant is caught carrying a gun, without City permission, their contract will be terminated.
L. Executive Order N-6-22 – Russia Sanctions On March 4, 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-6-22 (the EO) regarding Economic Sanctions against Russia and Russian entities and individuals. “Economic Sanctions” refers to sanctions imposed by the U.S. government in response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine, as well as any sanctions imposed under state law. The EO directs state agencies to terminate contracts with, and to refrain from entering any new contracts with, individuals or entities that are determined to be a target of Economic Sanctions. Accordingly, should the State determine Contractor is a target of Economic Sanctions or is conducting prohibited transactions with sanctioned individuals or entities, that shall be grounds for termination of this agreement. The State shall provide Contractor advance written notice of such termination, allowing Contractor at least 30 calendar days to provide a written response. Termination shall be at the sole discretion of the State.
84 RFB NO. 23-24-57
TRANSPORTATION OF BIOSOLIDS TO THE TULARE COUNTY LANDFILL (VISALIA WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY)
EXHIBIT “C, Attachment 2”
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
1. CONTRACTOR Insurance. CONTRACTOR, at its sole cost and expense, for the full term of this Agreement (and any extensions thereof), shall obtain and maintain at a minimum compliance with all of the following insurance coverage(s) and requirements. Such insurance coverage shall be primary coverage as respects CITY and any insurance or self-insurance maintained by CITY shall be in excess of CONTRACTOR’s insurance coverage and shall not contribute to it.
2. Subcontractor(s’) Insurance. If CONTRACTOR utilizes one or more subcontractors in the performance of this Agreement, CONTRACTOR shall obtain and maintain independent insurance as to each subcontractor or otherwise provide evidence of insurance coverage for each subcontractor equivalent to that required of CONTRACTOR.
3. Types of Insurance and Minimum Limits. The following types of insurance and minimum limits are required providing at least the following minimum coverage and limits of liability:
a. Worker’s Compensation written in accordance with the laws of the State of California providing coverage for any and all employees of CONTRACTOR in the minimum statutorily required coverage amounts;
b. Automobile Liability Insurance for each of CONTRACTOR’s vehicles used in the performance of this Agreement, including owned, non-owned (e.g. owned by CONTRACTOR’s employees or contractors), leased or hired vehicles, in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage.
c. Comprehensive or Commercial General Liability Insurance coverage in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit, including coverage for:
(1) bodily injury;
(2) personal injury;
(3) broad form property damage;
(4) contractual liability;
(5) cross-liability;
(6) products and completed operations liability
4. Other Insurance Provisions.
If any insurance coverage required in this Agreement is provided on a “Claims Made” rather than “Occurrence” form, CONTRACTOR agrees to maintain the required coverage for a period of three (3) years after the expiration of this Agreement (hereinafter “post agreement coverage”) and any extensions thereof. CONTRACTOR may maintain the required post agreement coverage by renewal or purchase of prior acts or tail coverage. This provision is contingent upon post agreement coverage being both available and reasonably affordable in relation to the coverage provided during the term of this Agreement. For purposes of interpreting this requirement, a cost not exceeding 100% of the last annual policy premium during the term of this Agreement in order to purchase prior acts or tail coverage for post agreement coverage shall be deemed to be reasonable.
5. Endorsements.
All required Automobile and Comprehensive or Commercial General Liability Insurance shall be endorsed to contain the following clauses:
85 RFB NO. 23-24-57
TRANSPORTATION OF BIOSOLIDS TO THE TULARE COUNTY LANDFILL (VISALIA WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY)
a. The City of Visalia, its officers, agents, employees, representatives, and volunteers are added as additional insureds as respects operations and activities of, or on behalf of the named insured, performed under contract with the City of Visalia. b. It is agreed that any insurance maintained by the City of Visalia shall apply in excess of and not contribute with insurance provided by this policy. c. This insurance shall not be canceled, limited in scope or coverage, or non-renewed until after thirty (30) days prior written notice has been given to the City Clerk, City of Visalia, 707 W. Acequia, Visalia, CA, 93291
6. Proof of Coverage.
CONTRACTOR agrees to provide its insurance broker(s) with a full copy of these insurance provisions and provide CITY on or before the effective date of this Agreement with Certificate(s) of Insurance for all required coverages. Copies of all the required Endorsements shall be attached to the Certificate(s) of Insurance or other evidence of insurance acceptable to the City of Visalia, which shall be provided by CONTRACTOR’s insurance company as evidence of the stipulated coverages. This Proof of Coverage shall then be mailed to the City of Visalia at the following address:
City of Visalia
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
Attn: Purchasing Division
86 87
88 89
90 91
92 93
94 95
96 97
98 99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 24-0471 Agenda Date: 11/18/2024 Agenda #: 7.
Agenda Item Wording:
Environmental Determination - Adopt Resolution No. 2024-63 adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-56 prepared for the California Department of Water Resources, Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Implementation Grant, Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project (Resolution No. 2024-63 required).
Deadline for Action: 11/18/2024
Submitting Department: Community Development
Contact Name and Phone Number:
Rebecca Keenan, Senior Civil Engineer, (559) 713-4541, [email protected] < mailto:[email protected]>
Jason Huckleberry, Engineering & Building Director, (559) 713-4495, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]%[email protected]> Paul Bernal, Planning and Community Preservation Director, (559) 713-4025, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Department Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2024-63 adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-56 prepared for the California Department of Water Resources, Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Implementation Grant, Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2024100447).
Background Discussion:
On February 7, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution 2022-06 authorizing the Greater Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency to submit a grant application on behalf of the City of Visalia for the Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) administers the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) grant program with funds authorized under the California Budget Act of 2021 and Proposition 68. Projects are intended to address groundwater investments and drought to achieve regional sustainability investments in groundwater recharge projects and other conjunctive use projects. The Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project was awarded a grant by DWR in the amount of $2,000,000.00.
The project goal is to increase groundwater recharge through linear water pools that will infiltrate over time to recharge the groundwater. The goal will be achieved through the construction of three (3) reinforced concrete check structure facilities within Cameron Creek (or “Creek”), all located outside of City limits but within the City’s Urban Growth Boundary. The section of the creek to be utilized starts near where the creek diverts from Tulare Irrigation District’s (TID) main intake canal east of Road 156, with the end location northeast of the Lovers Lane and Caldwell Avenue intersection. The check structures would be equipped with automatic gates capable of passing high flows (250 cubic feet per Visalia City Council Page 1 of 3 Printed on 11/15/2024
powered by Legistar™118
File #: 24-0471 Agenda Date: 11/18/2024 Agenda #: 7.
second) while maintaining high water levels in the channel, making the creek a linear recharge basin.
The grant agreement requires that the project obtain California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance, and that a copy of the final CEQA documentation be submitted to the DWR Grant Manager. To meet this requirement, the City of Visalia hired Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group to prepare the required documents. The “Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project, Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration” was circulated for comment and submitted to the State Clearinghouse on October 11, 2024. During the 30-day comment period, staff received the following comments:
· An inquiry from the Department of Water Resources - Division of Dam Safety as they reviewed the project to make a jurisdictional determination. After their initial inquiry, the Division of Dam Safety provided a follow up email dated October 25, 2024, and determined that the project is not subject to their jurisdictional review.
· San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District letter dated, October 30th, 2024. This letter recommends the use of clean off-road construction equipment. The letter also listed some of the District Rules that may be applicable to the project. A copy of the letter is attached to this report.
An additional letter of comment was received via email, on November 13th, 2024, after the 30-day comment period expired on November 12, 2024:
· The California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) submitted a letter regarding wildlife, permitting, and other recommendations & suggestions. A copy of the letter is attached to this report.
Copies of the Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-56, comment letters, and Response to Comments are attached to this staff report. There were two revisions to the Mitigations, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP) in the Final IS/MND. The revisions are to add a mitigation measure related to consultation in the event a Swainson’s Hawk (SWHA) nest cannot be appropriately avoided; and the other added mitigation measure is related to the Burrowing Owl’s (BUOW) new status.
To complete the environmental review process for the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Implementation Grant, a Notice of Determination (NOD) needs to be filed with the Tulare County Clerk’s Office. In order to file the NOD, the City Council must adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the grant by adopting Resolution No. 2024-63. Upon adoption of the resolution for the Mitigated Negative Declaration, staff will file the NOD with the Tulare Clerk’s Office and the State Clearinghouse.
Fiscal Impact: None.
Visalia City Council Page 2 of 3 Printed on 11/15/2024
powered by Legistar™119
File #: 24-0471 Agenda Date: 11/18/2024 Agenda #: 7.
Prior Council Action:
February 20, 2024
The City Council authorized the City Manager to enter into a contract with Provost & Pritchard for professional consulting services for the Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project in the amount not to exceed $236,259.00.
June 19, 2023
The City Council accepted and authorized the appropriation of $2,000,000 from the Sustainable Groundwater Management Grant Program for the Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project and appropriated $60,000 for staff indirect costs from the Ground Water Recharge Fund (224).
February 7, 2022
The City Council adopted Resolution 2022-06 authorizing the Greater Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GKGSA) to submit a grant application on behalf of the City of Visalia to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) for the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Call for Projects.
Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):
I move to adopt Resolution No. 2024-63 adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-56 prepared for the California Department of Water Resources, Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Implementation Grant, Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project.
Environmental Assessment Status:
An Initial Study was prepared for the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Implementation Grant, Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project. Initial Study No. 2024-56 disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be not significant with the incorporation of mitigation to address significant impacts to cultural resources.
CEQA Review: Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-56 has been prepared for this project.
Attachments:
1. Resolution No. 2024-63 adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-56 for the Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project.
2. Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-56
3. Location map
4. Received comments
5. Response to Comments
Visalia City Council Page 3 of 3 Printed on 11/15/2024
powered by Legistar™120
Resolution No. 2024-63
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-63
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISALIA, ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2024-56, WHICH EVALUATES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
FOR THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, SUSTAINABLE
GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT (SGMA) IMPLEMENTATION GRANT, CAMERON CREEK LINEAR RECHARGE PROJECT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2024100447)
WHEREAS, the City Council at the February 7, 2022 City Council meeting, authorized the Greater Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GKGSA) to submit an application on behalf of the City of Visalia to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) for the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) call for projects; and, WHEREAS, Under authorization from Council Resolution 2022-06, the City of Visalia, through GKGSA, submitted grant applications for three projects: Cameron Creek Check Structures Project, Northern Cameron Basin Project, and Southern Cameron Basin Project, and was awarded a grant by the DWR in the amount of $2,000,000, for the Cameron Creek Check Structure Project, while the other two projects were not selected; and, WHEREAS, the proposed project for this grant application proposes to construct up to three (3) separate, reinforced concrete check structure facilities with the Cameron Creek channel; and,
WHEREAS, the Area of Potential Effect contains a total of 14 acres, beginning near the start of Cameron Creek where it diverts from TID’s Main Intake Canal east of Road 156, with the end location northeast of the Lovers Lane and Caldwell Avenue intersection; and, WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared which disclosed that no significant environmental impacts would result from the project with mitigation measures applied to the project; and,
WHEREAS, on the basis of this Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Draft IS/MND) for the Project were prepared and noticed for review and comment for 30 days beginning on October 11, 2024; and,
WHEREAS, the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Final IS/MND) for the Project was released on November 18, 2024, and consists of the Draft IS/MND for the Project with revisions to the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP); the written 121
Resolution No. 2024-63
comments and recommendations received on the Draft IS/MND; and the written responses of the City of Visalia to points raised in the review and consultation process; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Visalia considered the Final Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration and found that the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration contain and reflect the independent judgment of the City of Visalia.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Visalia hereby finds, on the basis of the whole record before it, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and hereby adopts Final Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2024-56. The documents and other material which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which the decisions based are located at the office of the City Planner, 315 E.
Acequia Avenue, Visalia, California, 93291.
122
CAMERON CREEK LINEAR RECHARGE
PROJECT
FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
NOVEMBER 2024
SCH NO. 2024100477
PREPARED FOR:
City of Visalia
Community Development Department
315 East Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
PREPARED BY:
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
123
Table of Contents
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 Introduction...............................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Regulatory Information ....................................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Document Format ............................................................................................................................1-1 Chapter 2 Project Description ....................................................................................................................2-1
2.1 Project Background ..........................................................................................................................2-1 Project Title..............................................................................................................2-1 Lead Agency Name and Address..............................................................................2-1 Contact Person and Phone Number.........................................................................2-1 Project Location .......................................................................................................2-1 General Plan Designation and Zoning ......................................................................2-1 Description of Project ..............................................................................................2-1 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval May Be Required.......................................2-3 Consultation with California Native American Tribes...............................................2-3 Chapter 3 Determination ...........................................................................................................................3-1
3.1 Potential Environmental Impacts.....................................................................................................3-1
3.2 Determination ..................................................................................................................................3-2 Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis..................................................................................................4-1
4.1 Aesthetics.........................................................................................................................................4-1 Baseline Conditions..................................................................................................4-1 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................................4-2
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .................................................................................................4-3 Baseline Conditions..................................................................................................4-3 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................................4-5
4.3 Air Quality.........................................................................................................................................4-7 Baseline Conditions..................................................................................................4-7 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................4-10
4.4 Biological Resources.......................................................................................................................4-12 Baseline Conditions................................................................................................4-12 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................4-27 Mitigation...............................................................................................................4-30
4.5 Cultural Resources..........................................................................................................................4-35 Baseline Conditions................................................................................................4-35 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................4-36 124
Table of Contents
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 ii
Mitigation...............................................................................................................4-37
4.6 Energy.............................................................................................................................................4-38 Baseline Conditions................................................................................................4-38 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................4-38
4.7 Geology and Soils ...........................................................................................................................4-40 Baseline Conditions................................................................................................4-40 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................4-42
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.............................................................................................................4-44 Baseline Conditions................................................................................................4-44 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................4-45
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials..................................................................................................4-47 Baseline Conditions................................................................................................4-47 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................4-48
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality .......................................................................................................4-50 Baseline Conditions................................................................................................4-50 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................4-51
4.11 Land Use and Planning .................................................................................................................4-55 Baseline Conditions................................................................................................4-55 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................4-55
4.12 Mineral Resources........................................................................................................................4-56 Baseline Conditions................................................................................................4-56 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................4-56
4.13 Noise ............................................................................................................................................4-58 Baseline Conditions................................................................................................4-58 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................4-58
4.14 Population and Housing ...............................................................................................................4-60 Baseline Conditions................................................................................................4-60 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................4-60
4.15 Public Services..............................................................................................................................4-62 Baseline Conditions................................................................................................4-62 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................4-62
4.16 Recreation ....................................................................................................................................4-64 Baseline Conditions................................................................................................4-64 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................4-65
4.17 Transportation..............................................................................................................................4-66 125
Table of Contents
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 iii
Baseline Conditions................................................................................................4-66 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................4-66
4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources..............................................................................................................4-68 Baseline Conditions................................................................................................4-68 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................4-69 Mitigation...............................................................................................................4-70
4.19 Utilities and Service Systems........................................................................................................4-71 Baseline Conditions................................................................................................4-71 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................4-72
4.20 Wildfire.........................................................................................................................................4-74 Baseline Conditions................................................................................................4-74 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................4-75
4.21 CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance....................................................................................4-76 Statement of Findings............................................................................................4-76 Chapter 5 Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program .......................................................................5-1 Chapter 6 References.................................................................................................................................6-1
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: CalEEMod Output Files...........................................................................................................A-1 Appendix B: Biological Resources Evaluation .............................................................................................B-1 Appendix C: Class III Inventory/Phase I Survey...........................................................................................C-1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1:Regional Location Map..............................................................................................................2-4 Figure 2-2: Topographic Quadrangle Map .................................................................................................2-1 Figure 2-3: Aerial Map................................................................................................................................2-2 Figure 2-4: General Plan Land Use Designation Map .................................................................................2-3 Figure 2-5: Zone District Map.....................................................................................................................2-4 Figure 4-1: Farmland Map..........................................................................................................................4-6 Figure 4-2: Habitats Map – Measurement Check Structure.....................................................................4-15 Figure 4-3: Habitats Map – Rector Check Structure .................................................................................4-16 Figure 4-4: Habitats Map – Lovers Check Structure .................................................................................4-17 Figure 4-5: Creek Habitat .........................................................................................................................4-18 Figure 4-6: Creek Habitat .........................................................................................................................4-18 Figure 4-7: Ruderal Habitat ......................................................................................................................4-19 Figure 4-8: Ruderal Habitat ......................................................................................................................4-19 Figure 4-9: FEMA Flood Map....................................................................................................................4-54 126
Table of Contents
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4-1: Aesthetics Impacts.....................................................................................................................4-1 Table 4-2: Agriculture and Forest Impacts .................................................................................................4-3 Table 4-3: Air Quality Impacts....................................................................................................................4-7 Table 4-4: Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Designation ................................4-8 Table 4-5: Project-Level Air Quality CEQA Thresholds of Significance......................................................4-10 Table 4-6: Unmitigated Short-Term Construction Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants..........4-10 Table 4-7: Maximum Daily Construction Related Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants .............................4-10 Table 4-8: Biological Resources Impacts...................................................................................................4-12 Table 4-9: List of Special Status Plants with Potential to Occur on the APE .............................................4-21 Table 4-10: List of Special Status Animals with Potential to Occur on the APE ........................................4-23 Table 4-11: Cultural Resources Impacts...................................................................................................4-35 Table 4-12: Energy Impacts......................................................................................................................4-38 Table 4-13: Geology and Soils Impacts.....................................................................................................4-40 Table 4-14: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts......................................................................................4-44 Table 4-15: Short Term Construction Related GHG Emissions.................................................................4-46 Table 4-16: Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts............................................................................4-47 Table 4-17: Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts...................................................................................4-50 Table 4-18: Land Use and Planning Impacts.............................................................................................4-55 Table 4-19: Mineral Resources Impacts ...................................................................................................4-56 Table 4-20: Noise Impacts........................................................................................................................4-58 Table 4-21: Population and Housing Impacts...........................................................................................4-60 Table 4-22: Public Services.......................................................................................................................4-62 Table 4-23: Recreation Impacts................................................................................................................4-64 Table 4-24: Transportation Impacts.........................................................................................................4-66 Table 4-25: Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts .........................................................................................4-68 Table 4-26: Utilities and Service Systems Impacts....................................................................................4-71 Table 4-27: Wildfire Impacts ....................................................................................................................4-74 Table 4-28: CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance.............................................................................4-76 Table 5-1: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program.......................................................................5-2 127
Table of Contents
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 v
ACRONYMS
AB ........................................................................................................................................... Assembly Bill APE ...........................................................................................................................Area of Potential Effect CalEEMod ...................................................................... California Emissions Estimator Modeling (software) CalFire ....................................................................... California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CARB................................................................................................................California Air Resources Board CDFW.................................................................................................................... California Fish and Wildlife CGP .................................................................................................................. Construction General Permit CH4 ................................................................................................................................................. Methane CHRIS.............................................................................. California Historical Resources Information System City ...........................................................................................................................................City of Visalia CNDDB.................................................................................................. California Natural Diversity Database CO2 ........................................................................................................................................Carbon dioxide County .......................................................................................................................................Tulare County DTSC ............................................................................................... Department of Toxic Substances Control EIR .................................................................................................................Environmental Impact Report FEMA............................................................................................. Federal Emergency Management Agency FMMP....................................................................................... Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program GAMAQI ............................................................ Guidelines for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts GC ...................................................................................................................................Government Code GHG ......................................................................................................................................Greenhouse Gas GKGSA .......................................................................... Greater Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency IS ............................................................................................................................................. Initial Study IS/MND......................................................................................Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MMRP.................................................................................... Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MND..............................................................................................................Mitigated Negative Declaration MTCO2e ..........................................................................................Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent NAHC................................................................................................. Native American Heritage Commission ND ...............................................................................................................................Negative Declaration NOX .......................................................................................................................................Nitrogen oxides O3 ......................................................................................................................................................Ozone PM10 ..................................................................................................... particulate matter 10 microns in size 128
Table of Contents
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 vi
PM2.5 ................................................................................................... particulate matter 2.5 microns in size ppb .......................................................................................................................................parts per billion ppm ......................................................................................................................................parts per million Project..........................................................................................................Cameron Creek Linear Recharge RMA .............................................................................................................. Resource Management Agency RWQCB................................................................................................Regional Water Quality Control Board SCE ......................................................................................................................Southern California Edison SJVAPCD ...............................................................................San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SMARA................................................................................................... Surface Mining and Reclamation Act SO2 ..........................................................................................................................................Sulfur Dioxide SoCalGas.................................................................................................... Southern California Gas Company SR ............................................................................................................................................. State Route SRA ........................................................................................................................ State Responsibility Area SSJVIC ................................................................................. Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center SWPPP............................................................................................... Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB................................................................................................. State Water Resources Control Board TCFD.............................................................................................................. Tulare County Fire Department TCFO................................................................................................................. Tulare County Sheriff’s Office TID .......................................................................................................................... Tulare Irrigation District USEPA..................................................................................United States Environmental Protection Agency USFWS................................................................................................United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS............................................................................................................. United States Geological Survey UST .....................................................................................................................Underground Storage Tank μg/m3..................................................................................................................micrograms per cubic meter VMT ............................................................................................................................ Vehicle Miles Traveled 129
Chapter 1: Introduction
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 1-1
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group (Provost & Pritchard) has prepared this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) on behalf of the City of Visalia (City) to address the potential environmental effects of the Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project (Project). This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. The City of Visalia is the CEQA lead agency for this Project.
The site and the Project are described in detail in Chapter 2 Project Description.
1.1 REGULATORY INFORMATION
An Initial Study (IS) is a document prepared by a lead agency to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment. In accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 14 (Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq.)-- also known as the CEQA Guidelines--Section 15064 (a)(1) states that an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared if there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the Project under review may have a significant effect on the environment and should be further analyzed to determine mitigation measures or project alternatives that might avoid or reduce project impacts to less than significant levels. A negative declaration (ND) may be prepared instead if the lead agency finds that there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. An ND is a written statement describing the reasons why a proposed Project, not otherwise exempt from CEQA, would not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, why it would not require the preparation of an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15371). According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, a ND or mitigated ND shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when either:
a. The IS shows there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed Project may have a significant effect on the environment, or b. The IS identified potentially significant effects, but:
1. Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed MND and IS is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur is prepared, and
2. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed Project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.
1.2 DOCUMENT FORMAT
This IS/MND contains six chapters. Chapter 1 Introduction provides an overview of the Project and the CEQA process. Chapter 2 Project Description provides a detailed description of proposed Project components and objectives. Chapter 3 Determination provides the Lead Agency’s determination based upon this initial evaluation. Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis presents the CEQA checklist and environmental analysis for all impact areas, mandatory findings of significance, and feasible mitigation measures. If the Project does not have the potential to significantly impact a given issue area, the relevant section provides a brief discussion of the reasons why no impacts are expected. If the Project could have a potentially significant impact on a resource, the issue area discussion provides a description of potential impacts, and appropriate mitigation measures and/or permit requirements that would reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. Chapter 5 Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP) 130
Chapter 1: Introduction
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 1-2
provides the proposed mitigation measures, implementation timelines, and the entity/agency responsible for ensuring implementation. Chapter 6 References details the documents and reports this document relies upon to provide its analysis.
The CalEEMod Output Files, Biological Resources Evaluation, and Class III Inventory/Phase I Survey are provided as technical Appendix A, Appendix B, and Appendix C respectively, at the end of this document. 131
Chapter 2: Project Description
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 2-1
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
Project Title
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Visalia
Community Development Department, Planning Division
315 East Acequia Avenue
Visalia, California 93291
Contact Person and Phone Number
Lead Agency Contact
Rebecca Keenan, Engineer
(559) 713-4541
Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
(559) 713-4636
CEQA Consultant
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
Briza Sholars, Senior Environmental Planner, Project Manager (559) 449-2700
Project Location
The Project is located in Tulare County just outside of the southeastern quadrant of the City of Visalia, approximately 200 miles southeast of Sacramento and 62 miles north of Bakersfield (see Figure 2-1, Figure 2-2, and Figure 2-3). The centroid of the Project area is 36° 18’ 24.19” N, 119° 15’ 01.48” W.
General Plan Designation and Zoning
The land use designation for the project site as identified in the City of Visalia General Plan is Conservation.
The Project area itself does not have a Zoning designation as it consists of the existing Cameron Creek channel. Lands surrounding Cameron Creek contain both County of Tulare and the City of Visalia designations. See Figure 2-4 and Figure 2-5 for the surrounding designations.
Description of Project
Project Background and Purpose
The City of Visalia is looking to construct three new check structures in Cameron Creek to utilize the Creek as a linear recharge facility. The proposed Project’s goal is to increase groundwater recharge through linear 132
Chapter 2: Project Description
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 2-2
water pools that will percolate over time to recharge the groundwater aquifer in the vicinity of the City limits.
This proposed Project was conceived through a cooperative program for groundwater management between the City of Visalia, Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District (KDWCD), and Tulare Irrigation District (TID). The proposed Project was further refined through a reconnaissance study conducted in 2010.
The study included a pool capacity analysis that was performed on several sections within Cameron Creek.
This study has guided some of the check structure location, however through coordination with KDWCD and TID, the potential check structure locations were selected based upon access and operability.
The proposed Project is being funded by the California Department of Water Resources through the Sustainable Groundwater Management Grant program.
Project Description
The proposed Project proposes to construct up to three (3) reinforced concrete check structure facilities within the Cameron Creek channel. All check structures would be equipped with control gates and weir boards capable of passing high flows (250 cubic feet per second) while maintaining high water levels in the channel making Cameron Creek a linear recharge basin. The section of the Cameron Creek to be utilized begins near the start of Cameron Creek where it diverts from TID’s Main Intake Canal east of Road 156, with the end location northeast of the Lovers Lane and Caldwell Avenue intersection. See Figure 2-3 for specific locations for each proposed check structure.
For each check structure, it is anticipated that excavation through the creek channel and embankment would reach approximately 65 feet horizontally at a depth of about 10 feet from channel top (excavation from channel bottom will likely only 3-4 feet). Excavation for construction will be minimal and would only be the amount necessary for constructing the structures. Once completed, excavated soil would be backfilled around the structure and the channel prism re-graded to match existing conditions. No material export is anticipated, and earthwork would be balanced on site.
The Area of Potential Effect contains a total of 14 acres. This includes the proposed Project construction areas and an additional 25-foot buffer surrounding the proposed Project site.
Construction Schedule
The Project is anticipated to be constructed over the course of approximately four months, beginning in September of 2025. Generally, construction would occur between the hours of 6 am and 6 pm, Monday through Saturday, excluding holidays. Construction would require temporary staging and storage of materials and equipment onsite. Post-construction activities would include system testing, commissioning, site clean-up, and then operation.
Equipment
Construction equipment will likely include excavators, backhoes, graders, skid steers, loaders, water trucks, concrete trucks, and hauling trucks. Post-construction activities will include system testing, commissioning, and site clean-up. Construction will require temporary staging and storage of materials and equipment located at each site. The post-construction activities will largely be handled via pick-up trucks.
Operation and Maintenance
This Project would be operated in coordination with TID. Under a pending agreement, TID would take over the responsibilities for post-construction operation of the three check structures. Maintenance is 133
Chapter 2: Project Description
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 2-3
anticipated to be a joint effort between the two agencies to perform as-needed cleaning of debris and sediment as well as equipment monitoring and maintenance.
Other Public Agencies Whose Approval May Be Required
• County of Tulare
• Tulare Irrigation District
• Central Valley Water Quality Control Board
• United States Army Corps of Engineers
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Consultation with California Native American Tribes
Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, et seq. [codification of Assembly Bill (AB) 52, 2013-14] requires that a lead agency, within 14 days of determining that it will undertake a project, must notify in writing any California Native American Tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project if that Tribe has previously requested notification about projects in that geographic area. The notice must briefly describe the project and inquire whether the Tribe wishes to initiate request formal consultation. Tribes have 30 days from receipt of notification to request formal consultation. The lead agency then has 30 days to initiate the consultation, which then continues until the parties come to an agreement regarding necessary mitigation or agree that no mitigation is needed, or one or both parties determine that negotiation occurred in good faith, but no agreement will be made.
While the City has received one letter from the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 (AB 52), as a best practice, the City of Visalia notifies all Native American tribes listed on the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) provided list (see Section 4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources for the full NAHC tribal list). On June 13, 2024, the City sent thirteen tribal representatives representing eight tribes a formal notification letter that included a description of the proposed Project. In accordance with the law, the letter provided 30 days from receipt of the letter to request consultation in writing. No response was received. Further discussion of the AB 52 process can be found in the Section 4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources.
134
Chapter 2: Project Description
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 2-4
Figure 2-1:Regional Location Map
135
Chapter 2: Project Description
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 2-1
Figure 2-2: Topographic Quadrangle Map
136
Chapter 2: Project Description
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 2-2
Figure 2-3: Aerial Map
137
Chapter 2: Project Description
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 2-3
Figure 2-4: General Plan Land Use Designation Map
138
Chapter 2: Project Description
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 2-4
Figure 2-5: Zone District Map
139
Chapter 3: Determination
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 3-1
CHAPTER 3 DETERMINATION
3.1 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
As indicated by the discussions of existing and baseline conditions, and impact analyses that follow in this Chapter, environmental factors not checked below would have no impacts or less than significant impacts resulting from the project. Environmental factors that are. checked below would have potentially significant impacts resulting from the project. Mitigation measures are recommended for each of the potentially significant impacts that would reduce the impact to less than significant.
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance
The analyses of environmental impacts in Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis result in an impact statement, which shall have the following meanings.
Potentially Significant Impact. This category is applicable if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant, and no feasible mitigation measures can be identified to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. This category applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures would reduce an effect from a “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measure(s), and briefly explain how they would reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from earlier analyses may be cross-referenced).
Less than Significant Impact. This category is identified when the proposed Project would result in impacts below the threshold of significance, and no mitigation measures are required.
No Impact. This category applies when a project would not create an impact in the specific environmental issue area. “No Impact” answers do not require a detailed explanation if they are adequately supported by the information sources cited by the lead agency, which show that the impact does not apply to the specific project (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 140
Chapter 3: Determination
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
October 2024 3-2
3.2 DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation (to be completed by the Lead Agency):
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. _______________________________________ _____________________________ Signature Date
_______________________________________
Printed Name/Position
October 4, 2024
Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
141
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-1
CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ANALYSIS
4.1 AESTHETICS
Table 4-1: Aesthetics Impacts
Except as provided in Public Resources
Code Section 21099, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that
are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Baseline Conditions
The proposed Project is located along the floor of the San Joaquin Valley near the southeast quadrant of the City of Visalia in Tulare County. The San Joaquin Valley is known for its prominent agricultural land; and has been termed the “breadbasket of the world.” To the east lies the Sierra Nevada Mountain range and Sequoia National Park, which is known for its large mountains, rugged foothills, deep canyons, vast caverns, and the world’s largest trees, the giant sequoias.1 California State Route (SR) 198, which runs east-west through Visalia, connects to SR 99, located near the western boundary of Visalia’s city limits. SR 99 runs north-south through a large part of Central California. The 44-mile stretch of SR 198 between SR 99 and Sequoia National Park is classified as eligible for State Scenic Highway status but is not officially designated.2 Regional views from the valley floor are generally limited due to the flatness of the region; however, on 1 (National Park Service 2022)
2 (CIty of Visalia, Dyett & Bhatia, Urban and Regional Planners, ICF International, Provost and Pritchard Consulting Group, Omni-Means, Transportation Planners and Engineers 2014) 142
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-2
clear days the Sierra Nevada mountains are visible to the east. The City of Visalia is characterized as a freestanding city with a small-town feel, but also with big city amenities.
The Project area currently consists of Cameron Creek and the various lands that abut its channel within the proposed Project’s boundaries. These surrounding lands consist of mostly crops, vacant lots, graded access roads, and scattered residences.
Impact Analysis
a) Have substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less than Significant Impact. Views of the Sierra Nevada Mountain range to the east and the surrounding agricultural lands help showcase the scenery from the proposed Project. The development of check structures within Cameron Creek would not impede any views as they would be located within Cameron Creek’s channel, which is below grade. Impacts to a scenic vista would be less than significant. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is not located near a state scenic highway. There are no scenic resources onsite. Surrounding lands contain some oak trees; however, the proposed Project would not result in the removal or disturbance of any of said trees. Impacts would be less than significant. c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is located adjacent to the City of Visalia, which is considered an urbanized area. The Project area includes a portion of Cameron Creek that runs through the city of Visalia and Tulare County. Construction of the three check structures would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality. Any impacts would be less than significant.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
No Impact. The proposed Project does not include any new sources of light, nor would check structure materials be constructed in a manner that would result in substantial glaring effects. Therefore, there would be no impact.
143
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-3
4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Table 4-2: Agriculture and Forest Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
Baseline Conditions
The proposed Project is located in Tulare County just outside of the southeastern quadrant of the City of Visalia. Agriculture has been the predominant land use in the Project area since the late 1800s. Tulare County is known for its agricultural production as it was the number one agriculture producing county in the United States for 2020.3In 2022, Tulare County’s agriculture production grossed 8.6 billion dollars, an increase in 6.5% from the previous year.4
Due to the region’s rich soils, water resources, and favorable geographic and climatic conditions, agricultural activity in and around Visalia is highly productive Visalia’s agricultural heritage has contributed significantly to the City’s economy – much of the region’s economic activity is related to the cultivation, processing, and distribution of agricultural products – as well as its visual and cultural character. Historically, Visalia’s General Plan policies have acknowledged the value of the local and regional agricultural resources 3 (University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources 2022) 4 (Tulare County Agricultural Commissioner/Sealer 2022) 144
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-4
and sought to preserve them through urban growth management strategies and monitoring despite the prevalence of development pressures on local landowners and a growing urban population.5 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program: The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) produces maps and statistical data used for analyzing impacts to California’s agricultural resources.
Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation status; the best quality land is called Prime Farmland. The maps are updated every two years with the use of a computer mapping system, aerial imagery, public review, and field reconnaissance. The California Department of Conservation’s 2018 FMMP is a non-regulatory program that produces “Important Farmland” maps and statistical data used for analyzing impacts on California’s agricultural resources. The Important Farmland maps identify eight land use categories, five of which are agriculture related: prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, unique farmland, farmland of local importance, and grazing land — rated according to soil quality and irrigation status. Each is summarized below:
• PRIME FARMLAND (P): Farmland with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date. • FARMLAND OF STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE (S): Farmland similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
• UNIQUE FARMLAND (U): Farmland of lesser quality soils used for the production of the state’s leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated but may include non- irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. Land must have been cropped at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
• FARMLAND OF LOCAL IMPORTANCE (L): Land of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county’s board of supervisors and a local advisory committee. • GRAZING LAND (G): Land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. The minimum mapping unit for Grazing Land is 40 acres.
• URBAN AND BUILT-UP LAND (D): Land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, institutional, public administrative purposes, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes.
• OTHER LAND (X): Land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry, or aquaculture facilities; strip mines, borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. Vacant and disturbed land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land. • WATER (W): Perennial water bodies with an extent of at least 40 acres.
As demonstrated in Figure 4-1, the FMMP for the Project area is designated as Prime Farmland and Vacant and Disturbed Land.
6 5
(Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners 2014)
6 (California Department of Conservation 2023)
145
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-5
Impact Analysis
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would be located within the existing Cameron Creek channel which intermittently contains water. Lands surrounding Cameron Creek are planned and zoned for agricultural purposes. Implementation of the Project would not make any changes to any of the surrounding farmland. The proposed Project would utilize laydown areas outside the creek channel for construction equipment; however, these laydown areas would not encroach or destroy any existing crops or other agricultural commodities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Less than Significant Impact. The Project area covers the Cameron Creek channel and three laydown areas adjacent to the creek. The creek itself is un-zoned; however, the laydown areas are in areas zoned AE-20 under the jurisdiction of the County of Tulare. Implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with the purpose of the agricultural zone district or a Williamson Act contract. The proposed check structures would slow down the flow in the creek and allow water to pool, thereby resulting in increased linear recharge. Increasing recharge would ultimately provide benefits to agricultural operations, of which are prioritized under agricultural zoning and lands subject to Williamson Act contracts. In addition, the proposed laydown areas would not disturb active farming operations, and would only be temporary, lasting during the proposed Project’s construction period. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. The proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. The proposed Project, nor its surroundings, are designated as Forest Land, Timberland, or timberland zoned for Timberland Production. Therefore, there would be no impact.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The proposed Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use as there are none in the proposed Project region. Therefore, there would be no impact. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. As mentioned, the proposed check structures would ultimately provide benefits to agricultural operations by slowing down the flow in the creek, allowing water to pool and recharge the underlying aquifer. No aspect of the proposed Project would result in any conversion of farmland to another use. Furthermore, the Project area does not contain any forest lands or lands designated forest use; therefore, there would be no impact.
146
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-6
Figure 4-1: Farmland Map
147
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-7
4.3 AIR QUALITY
Table 4-3: Air Quality Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
Baseline Conditions
The Project area is located within the boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) and the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). The SJVAB is positioned within the San Joaquin Valley of California. The San Joaquin Valley is bounded by the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range to the east and the Coastal Mountain Range to the west. Wind within the SJVAB typically channels south-southwest during the summer months, while wind flows to the north-northwest during the winter months. Wind velocity for the region is considered low for an area of such size.7 Due to a lack of strong wind and the natural confinement of the mountain ranges surrounding the SJVAB, the region experiences some of the worst air quality in the world.
Regulatory Attainment Designations
Under the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is required to designate areas of the State as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified with respect to applicable standards. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not violate the applicable standard in that area. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the applicable standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria. Depending on the frequency and severity of pollutants exceeding applicable standards, the nonattainment designation can be further classified as serious nonattainment, severe nonattainment, or extreme nonattainment, with extreme nonattainment being the most severe of the classifications. An “unclassified” designation signifies that the data does not support either an attainment or nonattainment designation. The CCAA divides districts into moderate, serious, and severe air pollution categories, with increasingly stringent control requirements mandated for each category.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) designates areas for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) as “does not meet the primary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or 7 (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2012) 148
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-8
“better than national standards.” For sulfur dioxide (SO2), areas are designated as “does not meet the primary standards,” “does not meet the secondary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” However, the CARB terminology of attainment, nonattainment, and unclassified is more frequently used. The USEPA uses the same sub-categories for nonattainment status: serious, severe, and extreme. In 1991, USEPA assigned new nonattainment designations to areas that had previously been classified as Group I, II, or III for PM10 based on the likelihood that they would violate national PM10 standards. All other areas are designated “unclassified.” According to the USEPA the SJVAPCD was in non-attainment for two pollutant concentrations, with PM2.5 (2012) being classified as in serious non-attainment, and 8-hour Ozone (2015) classified as being in extreme non-attainment as of August 7th, 2024.8
Table 4-4: Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Designation Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California Standards* National Standards*
Concentration*
Attainment
Status
Primary
Attainment
Status
Ozone
(O3)
1-hour 0.09 ppm Nonattainment/
Severe
– No Federal
Standard
8-hour 0.070 ppm Nonattainment 0.075 ppm Nonattainment
(Extreme)**
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
AAM 20 μg/m3 Nonattainment – Attainment
24-hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
AAM 12 μg/m3 Nonattainment 12 μg/m3 Nonattainment
24-hour No Standard 35 μg/m3
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
1-hour 20 ppm Attainment/
Unclassified
35 ppm Attainment/
8-hour 9 ppm 9 ppm Unclassified
8-hour
(Lake Tahoe)
6 ppm –
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)
AAM 0.030 ppm Attainment 53 ppb Attainment/
1-hour 0.18 ppm 100 ppb Unclassified
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
AAM – Attainment -- Attainment/
24-hour 0.04 ppm -- Unclassified
3-hour – 0.5 ppm
1-hour 0.25 ppm 75 ppb
Lead (Pb) 30-day Average 1.5 μg/m3 Attainment – No
Designation/
Classification
Calendar Quarter –
--
Rolling 3-Month
Average
– 0.15 μg/m3
Sulfates (SO4) 24-hour 25 μg/m3 Attainment No Federal Standards Hydrogen
Sulfide (H2S)
1-hour 0.03 ppm
(42 μg/m3)
Unclassified
Vinyl Chloride
(C2H3Cl)
24-hour 0.01 ppm
(26 μg/m3)
Attainment
8 (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2024)
149
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-9
Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California Standards* National Standards*
Concentration*
Attainment
Status
Primary
Attainment
Status
VisibilityReducing
Particle Matter
8-hour Extinction coefficient:
0.23/km-visibility of
10 miles or more due
to particles when the
relative humidity is
less than 70%.
Unclassified
* For more information on standards visit: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf ** No Federal 1-hour standard. Reclassified extreme nonattainment for the Federal 8-hour standard ***Secondary Standard
Source: (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2012) Construction-Generated Emissions
Short-term construction emissions associated with the proposed Project were calculated using CalEEMod, Version 2022.1.1.26.26. The emissions modeling includes emissions generated by off-road equipment, haul trucks, and worker commute trips. Emissions were quantified based on an anticipated construction schedule of approximately four months. The Project proposes to construct three check structures along Cameron Creek. For modeling purposes, inputs assumed construction of a singular check structure, however the analysis contained herein triples the estimated emissions to quantify the expected emissions for the entirety of the Project. Localized air quality impacts associated with the proposed Project would be minor and qualitatively assessed. Modeling assumptions and output files are included in Appendix A.
Thresholds of Significance
Air pollutant emissions have regional effects and localized effects. This analysis assesses the regional effects of the proposed Project’s criteria pollutant emissions in comparison to SJVAPCD thresholds of significance for short-term construction activities and long-term operation of the proposed Project. Localized emissions from proposed Project construction and operation are also assessed using concentration-based thresholds that determine if the proposed Project would result in a localized exceedance of any ambient air quality standards or would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to an existing exceedance.
The primary pollutants of concern during proposed Project construction and operation are ROG (reactive organic gases), Nitrogen Oxides (NOX), PM10, and PM2.5. The SJVAPCD Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) adopted in 2015 contains thresholds for ROG and NOX; Sulfur Oxides (SOX), CO, PM10, and PM2.5.
Ozone is a secondary pollutant that can be formed miles away from the source of emissions through reactions of ROG and NOX emissions in the presence of sunlight. Therefore, ROG and NOX are termed ozone precursors. The SJVAB often exceeds the State and national ozone standards. Therefore, if the proposed Project emits a substantial quantity of ozone precursors, the proposed Project may contribute to an exceedance of the ozone standard. The SJVAB also exceeds air quality standards for PM10, and PM2.5; therefore, substantial proposed Project emissions may contribute to an exceedance for these pollutants.
The SJVAPCD adopted significance thresholds for construction-related and operational ROG, NOX, PM, CO, and SOX, these thresholds are included in Table 4-5.
150
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-10
Table 4-5: Project-Level Air Quality CEQA Thresholds of Significance Pollutant
Significance Threshold
Construction Emissions (tons/year) Operational Emissions (tons/year) ROG 10 10
NOX 10 10
CO 100 100
SOX 27 27
PM10 15 15
PM2.5 15 15
Source: SJVAPCD. 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. Website:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI-2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. Accessed August 7, 2024.
Impact Analysis
Construction-Generated Emissions
Estimated construction-generated emissions are summarized in Table 4-6 and Table 4-7. Operational emissions of the proposed Project would be considered negligible due to the type of use proposed on-site.
Table 4-6: Unmitigated Short-Term Construction Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants Source
Annual Emissions (Tons per Year)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Annual Project
Construction Emissions
0.06 0.66 0.90 < 0.005 0.06 0.03
SJVAPCD Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Table 4-7: Maximum Daily Construction Related Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants Source
Daily Emissions Maximum (in pounds)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Construction – Summer 3.39 30.3 31.2 0.06 17.46 9.00
SJVAPCD Threshold 100 100 100 100 100 100
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air quality plan. The proposed Project would not exceed any threshold for air quality emissions that has been set by the SJVAPCD. Therefore, there would be no impact. b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the proposed Project region is in non-attainment. As shown in Table 4-6 and Table 4-7, the proposed Project would not exceed an emissions threshold which has been set by the SJVAPCD for construction related emissions. The proposed Project would result in negligible quantities of operational emissions. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 151
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-11
c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would result in the construction of three check structures along Cameron Creek, southeast of the City of Visalia. The construction area of each check structure would be approximately 7,500 square feet in size and would be constructed over the span of approximately four months. While the Project would be constructed within the vicinity of some rural residences, the construction timeline is relatively short and construction would be focused in a limited area for each check structure. Given the short duration of construction and the limited area of construction, significant impacts are not expected to result from completion of the Project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant Impact. During construction activities, construction equipment exhaust and application of asphalt, structural coating and other construction applications would temporarily emit odors. Construction would be completed within the County of Tulare, near the Visalia and Farmersville city limits, and could have an effect on some residences that would be located near the construction area of the proposed Project. Construction of the proposed Project would be temporary, and no odors would remain after proposed Project completion. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 152
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-12
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Table 4-8: Biological Resources Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Baseline Conditions
General
The proposed Project is located along the floor of the San Joaquin Valley in Tulare County near the southeast quadrant of the City of Visalia in Tulare County. The Project area includes dirt roads and a section of Cameron Creek for a total of 14 acres. Surrounding lands on both sides of Cameron Creek are orchards, a recharge basin, agricultural and scattered residential homes. The topography of the Area of Potential Effect (APE) is relatively flat with elevations ranging from 318 to 352 feet above mean sea level. 153
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-13
Like most of California, the Area of Potential Effect (APE) experiences a Mediterranean climate. Warm, dry summers are followed by cool, moist winters. In the summer, average high temperatures range between 88- and 95 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), but often exceed 95 °F, and the humidity is generally low. Winter temperatures are often below 57 °F during the day and rarely exceed 64 °F. On average, the City of Visalia receives approximately 10.6 inches of precipitation in the form of rain yearly, most of which occurs between October and May, and the APE would be expected to receive similar amounts of precipitation.9 Soils
One soil mapping unit representing one soil type was identified within the APE (see Appendix D of Appendix B for the Web Soil Survey Report). The only soil type within the APE is Grangeville and the soil map unit is sandy loam, drained, with 0 to 2 percent slopes. Grangeville soils are somewhat poorly drained, with negligible to very low runoff, and moderately rapid permeability. This soil type is primarily used for wildlife habitat and agriculture.
Hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions such that under sufficiently wet conditions, hydrophytic vegetation can be supported. The interpretive group and one minor soil component were identified as hydric.
Biotic Habitats
A reconnaissance level field survey of the APE was conducted on June 3, 2024 (see Appendix B for the Biological Resources Evaluation prepared for the proposed Project). The APE includes approximately eight (8) acres with an additional 25-foot buffer surrounding the proposed Project site. It includes dirt roads and a section of Cameron Creek for a total of 14 acres. During the field survey, two biotic habitats were observed within the APE and included creek and ruderal (see Figure 4-2, Figure 4-3, and Figure 4-4 for the specific locations of each habitat found within the APE). These habitats and their constituent plant and animal species are described in more detail in the following sections.
Creek
The APE is located within Cameron Creek (see Figure 4-5 and Figure 4-6 for representative photos of the creek habitat observed during the field survey). The vegetation abundance varied throughout the creek, however the species richness remained consistent. The water level in the creek varied from dry to ponded for no more than a few hundred feet. There was trash and tire marks observed throughout the creek. There were two bridges that overlapped the boundary of the APE. The first bridge was west of the measurement check and the second bridge was north of the rector check.
The survey of the APE resulted in the identification of the following species: tall flatsedge (Cyperus eragrostis), horseweed (Erigeron canadensis), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica), common cocklebur, (Xanthium orientale), seep monkeyflower (Erythranthe guttata), Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), watermelon (Citrullus lanatus), common sunflower (Helianthus annuus), Spanish clover, (Acmispon americanus), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), and prickly pear (Opuntia ficusindica).
The survey of the APE resulted in the identification of the following species or their sign; cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) nests, house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), mourning dove (Zenaida 9 (Weatherspark)
154
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-14
marcoura), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), turkey vulture (Cathates aura), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) scat.
Ruderal
The majority of the ruderal area was comprised of a dirt road that runs parallel on both sides of Cameron Creek. Soils were generally, bare with occasional sparse, non-native vegetation throughout the habitat, and scatted valley oak trees (Quercus lobata) (see Figure 4-7 and Figure 4-8 for representative photos of the ruderal habitat observed during the field survey).
The survey of the APE resulted in the identification of the following species; California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beechyi) was observed alarm calling, barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), slide-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana) was observed seeking shelter between some rocks along Cameron Creek, red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaincensis), common raven (Corvus corax), brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), California scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica), an American kestrel (Falco sparverius) was dive bombing an American crow (Corvus brachyrhynochos) that was perched in an orchard tree, and a Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) was observed flying over the APE and into a valley oak tree outside the APE.
155
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-15
Figure 4-2: Habitats Map – Measurement Check Structure
156
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-16
Figure 4-3: Habitats Map – Rector Check Structure
157
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-17
Figure 4-4: Habitats Map – Lovers Check Structure
158
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-18
Figure 4-5: Creek Habitat
Figure 4-6: Creek Habitat
159
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-19
Figure 4-7: Ruderal Habitat
Figure 4-8: Ruderal Habitat
160
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-20
Natural Communities of Special Concern and Riparian Habitat Natural communities of special concern are those that are of limited distribution, distinguished by significant biological diversity, or home to special status species. CDFW has classified and mapped all natural communities in California. Just as the special status plant and animal species (see Section 3.6), these natural communities of special concern can be found within the CNDDB. No natural communities of special concern were observed during the field survey.
Riparian habitat is composed of plant communities that occur along the banks, and sometimes over the banks, of most waterways and is an important habitat for numerous wildlife species. CDFW has jurisdiction over most riparian habitats in California. No riparian habitat was observed within or adjacent to the APE during the field survey.
Designated Critical Habitat
The USFWS often designates areas of “critical habitat” when it lists species as threatened or endangered.
Critical habitat is a specific geographic area that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species, which may require special management and protection. According to the IPaC, designated critical habitat is absent from the APE how there are areas of designated critical habitat in the region, including 13 miles east of the APE for California condors (Gymnogyps californianus) and 9 miles northeast and northwest of the APE for Hoover’s spurge (Chamesyce hooveri) and San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass (Orcuttia inaequalis).
Wildlife Movement Corridors and Native Wildlife Nursery Sites Wildlife movement corridors are routes that animals regularly and predictably follow during seasonal migration, dispersal from native ranges, daily travel within home ranges, and inter-population movements.
Movement corridors in California are typically associated with valleys, ridgelines, rivers and creeks supporting riparian vegetation.
It is unlikely Cameron Creek serves as a movement corridor with the unpredictable water volume of Cameron Creek. Additionally, there are alternative routes such as the creek roads and the Western Pacific Railroad.
Native wildlife nursery sites are areas where a species or group of similar species raise their young in a concentrated place, such as maternity bat roosts. Several large valley oak trees were observed in Cameron Creek that could be used as maternity bat roosts within the APE.
Special Status Plants and Animals
California contains several rare plant and animal species. In this context, “rare” is defined as a species known to have low populations or limited distributions. Conversion of habitats to accommodate human population growth in turn reduces the already-limited suitable habitat for rare species. This results in rare and sensitive species becoming increasingly more vulnerable to extirpation. State and federal regulations have provided the CDFW and USFWS with mechanisms for conserving and protecting the diversity of plant and animal species native to California. Numerous native plants and animals have been formally designated as “threatened” or “endangered” under state and federal endangered species legislation. Other formal designations include “candidate” for listing or “species of special concern” by CDFW. The CNPS has its list of native plants considered rare, threatened, or endangered. Collectively these animals and plants are referred to as “special status species.”
161
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-21
A query of the CNDDB for occurrences of special status plant and animal species was conducted for the Visalia and Exeter U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangles that contain the APE, and for the 10 surrounding USGS quadrangles: Traver, Monson, Ivanhoe, Woodlake, Goshen, Visalia, Exeter, Rocky Hill, Paige, Tulare, Cairns Corner, Lindsay. A query of the IPaC was also completed for the APE. These species, and their potential to occur within the APE, are listed in Table 4-9 and Table 4-10 below. Other special status species that did not show up in the CNDDB query, but have the potential to occur in the vicinity, are also included in Table 4-10. Species lists obtained from CNDDB and IPaC are available in Appendix B. All relevant sources of information, as discussed in this section, as well as field observations, were used to determine if any special status species have the potential to occur within the APE.
Table 4-9: List of Special Status Plants with Potential to Occur on the APE Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the APE
Alkali-sink goldfields
(Lasthenia
chrysantha)
CNPS 1B Found in vernal pool and wet saline flat
habitats in the San Joaquin Valley region
at elevations below 700 feet. Blooms
February – April.
Absent. Vernal pools were not
observed within the APE.
Brittlescale
(Atriplex depressa)
CNPS 1B Found in the Central Valley in alkaline or
clay soils, typically in meadows or annual
grasslands at elevations below 1,100
feet. Sometimes associated with vernal
pools. Blooms June – October.
Absent. The soil and habitat required
for this species were not observed
within the APE.
Calico monkeyflower
(Diplacus pictus)
CNPS 1B Found in the Sierra Nevada foothills and
the Tehachapi mountains in bare, sunny,
shrubby areas, around granite outcrops
within foothill woodland communities at
elevations between 450 and 4,100 feet.
Blooms March – May.
Absent. The APE is outside of the
current known range of this species.
California jewelflower
(Caulanthus
californicus)
FE, CE,
CNPS 1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley and
western Transverse Ranges in sandy soils.
Occurs on flats and slopes, generally in
non-alkaline grassland at elevations
between 200 and 6,100 feet. Blooms
February – April.
Absent. The soil and habitat required
for this species were not observed
within the APE.
California alkali grass
(Puccinellia simplex)
CNPS 1B Found in the San Joaquin Valley and
other parts of California in saline flats
and mineral springs within valley
grassland and wetland-riparian
communities at elevations below 3,000
feet. Blooms March – May.
Absent. The habitat required for this
species was not observed within the
APE.
California satintail
(Imperata brevifolia)
CNPS 2B Often found in wet springs, meadows,
streambanks, and floodplains, and can
also be found in coastal scrub, riparian
scrub, Mojavean desert scrub, chaparral,
and alkali seeps at elevations below
1,600 feet. Blooms September – May.
Unlikely. The habitat required for this
species was not observed within the
APE. The most recent recorded
observation occurred in an
undetermined location two miles
northwest of the APE in 1895.
Coulter’s goldfields
(Lasthenia glabrata
ssp. coulteri)
CNPS 1B Found on alkaline and saline soils in
vernal pools and playas in grassland at
elevations below 4,500 feet. Blooms April
– May.
Absent. Vernal pools were not
observed within the APE.
Earlimart orache
(Atriplex cordulata
var. erecticaulis)
CNPS 1B Found in the San Joaquin Valley in saline
and alkaline soils, typically within valley
grasslands at elevations below 400 feet.
Blooms August – September.
Absent. The soils and habitat required
by this species were not observed
within the APE.
162
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-22
Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the APE
Greene’s tuctoria
(Tuctoria greenei)
FE, CNPS
1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley and
other parts of California in vernal pools
within valley grassland, wetland, and
riparian communities at elevations below
3,500 feet. Blooms May – September.
Absent. The habitat required for this
species was not observed within the
APE.
Heartscale
(Atriplex cordulata
var. cordulata)
CNPS 1B Found in the Central Valley in saline or
alkaline soils within shadscale scrub,
valley grassland, and wetland-riparian
communities at elevations below 250
feet. Blooms June – July.
Absent. The soil and habitat required
for this species were not observed
within the APE.
Hoover’s spurge
(Euphorbia hooveri)
FT, CNPS
1B
Found in vernal pools within valley
grassland, freshwater wetland, and
riparian communities at elevations below
800 feet. Blooms July – September.
Absent. Vernal pools were not
observed within the APE.
Kaweah brodiaea
(Brodiaea insignis)
CE, CNPS
1B
Found in the Sierra Nevada foothills in
foothill woodland and valley grassland
communities at elevations between 650
and 1,700 feet. Blooms May – June.
Absent. The APE is outside the current
known range of this species.
Lassics lupine
(Lupinus constancei)
FE, CE,
CNPS 1B
Found near the summits of mountains in
Humboldt and Trinity County in
serpentine communities between 5,000
to 6,000 feet in elevation. Blooms July.
Absent. The APE is outside the current
known range of this species.
Lesser saltscale
(Atriplex minuscula)
CNPS 1B Found in the San Joaquin Valley in sandy,
alkaline soils in alkali scrub, valley and
foothill grassland, and alkali sink
communities at elevations below 750
feet. Blooms April – October.
Absent. The soils and the habitat
required by this species were not
observed within the APE.
Recurved larkspur
(Delphinium
recurvatum)
CNPS 1B Occurs in chenopod scrub, cismontane
woodland, and grassland habitats on
poorly drained, fine, alkaline soils; often
in valley saltbush or valley chenopod
scrub communities at elevations
between 100 and 2,600 feet. Blooms
March – June.
Absent. The soils and habitat required
by this species were not observed
within the APE.
Sanford’s arrowhead
(Sagittaria sanfordii)
CNPS 1B This species is an aquatic plant and is
found in the San Joaquin Valley and other
parts of California in freshwater marshes,
ponds, canals, and ditches at elevations
below 1,000 feet. Blooms May – October.
Unlikely. Cameron Creek does not
contain water on a regular basis to be
able to support this species. The most
recent recorded observation occurred
nine miles northeast of the APE in 2018.
San Joaquin adobe
sunburst
(Pseudobahia
peirsonii)
FT, CE,
CNPS 1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley and the
Sierra Nevada foothills in bare, dark clay
soils in valley and foothill grassland and
cismontane woodland communities at
elevations between 300 and 3,000 feet.
Blooms March – May.
Absent. Soils and habitat required by
this species were not observed within
the APE.
San Joaquin Valley
Orcutt grass
(Orcuttia inaequalis)
FT, CE,
CNPS 1B
Found in the eastern San Joaquin Valley
and the Sierra Nevada foothills in vernal
pools within valley grassland, freshwater
wetland, and wetland-riparian
communities at elevations below 2,600
feet. Blooms April – September.
Absent. Vernal pool and wetland
communities were not observed within
the APE.
163
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-23
Table 4-10: List of Special Status Animals with Potential to Occur on the APE Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the APE
Spiny-sepaled buttoncelery
(Eryngium
spinosepalum)
CNPS 1B Found in the Sierra Nevada foothills and
the San Joaquin Valley in vernal pools,
swales, and roadside ditches. Often
associated with clay soils in vernal pools
within grassland communities. Occurs at
elevations between 50 and 4,200 feet.
Blooms April – July.
Absent. Vernal pools were not
observed within the APE.
Striped adobe-lily
(Fritillaria striata)
CT, CNPS
1B
Found in the Sierra Nevada foothills in
adobe soil within valley grassland and
foothill woodland communities at
elevations below 3,300 feet. Blooms
February – April.
Absent. The APE is outside the current
known range of this species.
Subtle orache
(Atriplex subtilis)
CNPS 1B Found in the San Joaquin Valley in saline
depressions in alkaline soils within valley
and foothill grassland communities at
elevations below 300 feet. Blooms June –
October.
Unlikely. The soils required by this
species were not present within the
APE. The most recent recorded
observation occurred in an
unconfirmed location eight miles
northwest of the in 2002.
Vernal pool smallscale
(Atriplex persistens)
CNPS 1B Occurs in the Central Valley in alkaline
vernal pools at elevations below 400
feet. Blooms June – September.
Absent. No vernal pools were observed
within the APE.
Winter’s sunflower
(Helianthus winteri)
CNPS 1B Found in the Sierra Nevada foothills on
steep, south-facing grassy slopes, rock
outcrops, and road-cuts at elevations
ranging from 600 to 1,500 feet. Blooms
year-round.
Absent. The APE is located outside the
current known elevational range of this
species.
Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the APE
American badger
(Taxidea taxus)
CSSC Prefers drier open stages of shrub, forest,
and herbaceous habitats with friable soils
to burrow, but can be found within
numerous habitats throughout California,
including the margins of agricultural
lands. Needs a sufficient prey base of
burrowing rodents.
Possible. The banks along Cameron
Creek can provide suitable denning
habitat for this species. Also, numerous
California ground squirrel burrows were
observed throughout the creek
providing a prey source for this species.
The most recent recorded observation
occurred two miles northeast of the
APE in 1994.
Blunt-nosed leopard
lizard
(Gambelia sila)
FE, CE, CFP Occurs in the San Joaquin Valley region in
expansive, arid areas with scattered
vegetation. Today they inhabit nonnative grassland and alkali sink scrub communities of the valley floor marked
by poorly drained, alkaline, and saline
soils. They can be found at elevations
ranging from approx. 100 to 2,600 feet.
They are absent from areas with steep
slopes and dense vegetation, and areas
subject to seasonal flooding. Adults may
excavate shallow burrows but rely on
deeper pre-existing rodent burrows for
hibernation and reproduction.
Absent. No suitable habitat was
observed within the APE.
Buena Vista Lake
ornate shrew
FE, CSSC Prefers moist soils, inhabiting marshes,
swamps, and riparian shrublands in the
Absent. No suitable habitat was
observed within the APE.
164
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-24
Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the APE
(Sorex ornatus
relictus)
Tulare Basin. Uses stumps, logs, and leaf
litter for cover.
Burrowing owl
(Athene cunicularia)
CSSC Resides in open, dry grasslands, deserts,
scrublands, and other areas with low
growing vegetation. Nests and roosts
underground in existing burrows created
by mammals, most often by ground
squirrels, and human-made structures.
Possible. The APE had numerous
California ground squirrel burrows that
could be used by the species that were
observed along the creek. The most
recent recorded sighting occurred 12
miles northwest of the APE in 2017.
California tiger
salamander – central
California DPS
(Ambystoma
californiense)
FT, CT Requires vernal pools or seasonal ponds
for breeding and small mammal burrows
for aestivation. Generally found in
grassland and oak savannah plant
communities in central California from
sea level to 1,500 feet in elevation. Can
migrate up to 1.3 miles to breed.
Unlikely. The APE had small mammal
burrows for the adults of this species to
use during the non-breeding season as
upland habitat. There were no vernal
pools or seasonal ponds within the APE
or surrounding area for this species to
breed in. The most recent recorded
observation occurred 9 miles northwest
of the APE in 2002.
California condor
(Gymnogyps
californianus)
FE, CE, CFP Typically nests in cavities in canyon or
cliff faces but has also been recorded
nesting in giant sequoias in Tulare
County. Requires vast expanses of open
savannah, grassland, and/or foothill
chaparral in mountain ranges of
moderate altitude. Forages for carrion up
to 100 miles from their roost/nest sites.
Unlikely. The species could forage in
the area, but the APE lacks suitable
nesting habitat. The CNDDB has no
observation records for this species
within the APE and the entire 11 quads.
Crotch’s bumble bee
(Bombus crotchii)
CCE Occurs throughout coastal California, as
well as east to the Sierra Nevada-Cascade
crest, and south into Mexico. Food plant
genera include snapdragons,
scorpionweeds, primroses, poppies, and
buckwheats.
Unlikely. The APE lacked any of the
necessary forage plants for this species.
The most recent recorded observation
of the species occurred in an
undetermined location approximately
seven miles east of the APE in 2010.
Foothill yellow-legged
frog – south Sierra
Distinct Population
Segment
(Rana boylii)
FC, CE Frequents rocky streams and rivers with
rocky substrate and open, sunny banks in
forests, chaparral, and woodlands.
Occasionally found in isolated pools,
vegetated backwaters, and deep, shaded,
spring-fed pools.
Absent. The habitat and habitat
features required by this species were
not observed within the APE.
Loggerhead shrike
(Lanius ludovicianus)
CSSC Frequents open habitats with sparse
shrubs and trees, other suitable perches,
bare ground, and low herbaceous cover.
In the Central Valley, this species nests in
riparian areas, desert scrub, and
agricultural hedgerows.
Possible. Nesting habitat such as trees
greater than five feet tall with dense
foliage was observed. Also, the creek
and agricultural fields provided ample
foraging opportunities for this species
within the APE. The most recent
recorded observation occurred 12 miles
northwest of the APE in 1992.
Monarch butterfly
(Danaus plexippus)
FC Roosts in wind-protected tree groves
(eucalyptus, Monterey pine, cypress),
with nectar and water sources nearby.
Larval host plants consist of milkweeds.
Winter roost sites extend along the
Pacific Coast from northern Mendocino
to Baja California, Mexico.
Possible. Suitable overwintering habitat
in the form of valley oak trees with
suitable wind protection was observed
with the APE. However, the trees in the
APE are not expected to be removed
and therefore will not impact this
species. The most recent recorded
observation occurred three miles east
of the APE in 2019 in the Kaweah Oaks
Preserve.
165
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-25
Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the APE
Northern California
legless lizard
(Anniella pulchra)
CSSC Found primarily underground, burrowing
in loose, sandy soil. Forages in loose soil
and leaf litter during the day.
Occasionally observed on the surface at
dusk and night.
Unlikely. The soil was too compacted
for this species to burrow through. The
nearest recorded sighting occurred
three miles northeast of the APE in
2015.
Northern leopard frog
(Lithobates pipiens)
CSSC Inhabits grassland, wet meadows,
potholes, forests, woodland, brushlands,
springs, canals, bogs, marshes, and
reservoirs in scattered locations in
California. Generally, prefers permanent
water with abundant riparian vegetation.
Unlikely. Cameron Creek does not
contain water regularly for the creek to
be a suitable breeding habitat for this
species. Cameron Creek also has sparse
aquatic vegetation making it less likely
this species would inhabit the creek.
The surrounding areas are either
orchards or residential homes, with
little to no tall vegetation for nonbreeding adults to inhabit during the summer. The most recent recorded
observation occurred 10 miles north of
the APE in 1961.
Northwestern pond
turtle
(Actinemys
marmorata)
FPT, CSSC An aquatic turtle of ponds, marshes,
slow-moving rivers, streams, and
irrigation ditches with riparian
vegetation. Requires adequate basking
sites and sandy banks or grassy open
fields to deposit eggs.
Unlikely. Cameron Creek does not
contain enough water regularly to be
considered suitable habitat for this
species. Cameron Creek also contains
sparse aquatic vegetation and basking
location for this species. The nearest
recorded observation occurred in an
undetermined location 2.5 miles
northwest of the APE in 1897.
Pallid bat
(Antrozous pallidus)
CSSC Found in grasslands, chaparral, and
woodlands, where it feeds on groundand vegetation-dwelling arthropods, and occasionally takes insects in flight.
Prefers to roost in rock crevices, but may
also use tree cavities, caves, bridges, and
other human-made structures.
Possible. Bare open habitat suitable for
foraging was observed within the APE.
Valley oak trees and bridges that could
be used by the females during the
breeding were also observed within the
APE. The nearest recorded observation
occurred 2.5 miles north of the APE in
2004.
San Joaquin kit fox
(Vulpes macrotis
mutica)
FE, CT Opportunistically forages in a variety of
habitats. Dens in burrows within alkali
sink, valley grassland, and woodland
habitats in valleys and adjacent foothills
and in human-made structures in cities,
rangeland, and agricultural areas.
Possible. The creek banks could provide
denning habitat for this species.
Additionally, California ground squirrels
and their burrows were observed
throughout the APE which would
provide denning opportunity and a
stable prey base for this species. Also,
there were some ruderal fields adjacent
to the APE this species could use to
forage in. The nearest recorded
observation occurred a quarter square
mile from the APE in 1975.
Swainson’s hawk
(Buteo swainsoni)
CT Nests in large trees in open areas
adjacent to grasslands, grain or alfalfa
fields, or livestock pastures suitable for
supporting rodent populations.
Present. A Swainson’s hawk was
observed flying over the APE and into a
nearby tree within the APE during the
recon survey. The Swainson’s hawk was
then observed flying into a valley oak
tree that was in an agricultural field
approximately a half mile west of the
APE.
166
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-26
Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the APE
Tipton kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys
nitratoides
nitratoides)
FE, CE Inhabits saltbush scrub and sink scrub
communities in the Tulare Lake Basin of
the southern San Joaquin Valley. This
species needs soft friable soils to burrow.
Absent. Suitable habitat and soils
required by this species were not
observed within the APE.
Tricolored blackbird
(Agelaius tricolor)
CT, CSSC Nests colonially near fresh water in
dense cattails or tules, or in thickets of
riparian shrubs. Forages in grassland and
cropland. Large colonies are often found
foraging in dairy farm feed fields.
Unlikely. Cameron Creek did not
contain enough aquatic vegetation to
support nesting activity for this species.
The nearest recorded observation
occurred eight miles east of the APE in
2014.
Valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
(Desmocerus
californicus
dimorphus)
FT Lives in mature elderberry shrubs in the
Central Valley and adjacent foothills from
Tehama County south through Merced
and Mariposa Counties with two
scattered populations in Madera and
Fresno Counties. Adults are active from
March to June.
Absent. No elderberry shrubs were
observed within the APE.
Vernal pool fairy
shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi)
FT Occupies vernal and seasonal pools, with
clear to tea-colored water, in grass or
mud-bottomed swales, and basalt
depression pools.
Absent. No vernal pools were observed
within the APE.
Vernal pool tadpole
shrimp
(Lepidurus packardi)
FE Occurs in vernal pools, clear to teacolored water, in grass or mud-bottomed swales, and basalt depression pools.
Absent. No vernal pools were observed
within the APE.
Western mastiff bat
(Eumops perotis
californicus)
CSSC Found in open, arid to semi-arid habitats,
including dry desert washes, flood plains,
chaparral, oak woodland, open
ponderosa pine forest, grassland, and
agricultural areas, where it feeds on
insects in flight. Roosts most commonly
in crevices in cliff faces but may also use
high buildings and tunnels.
Possible. The species could use the
bridge as roosting habitat. Particularly
when water is in Cameron Creek which
would create forage opportunities for
this species. The nearest recorded
observation occurred three and a half
miles west of the APE in 2005.
Western spadefoot
(Spea hammondii)
FPT, CSSC The majority of the time this species is
terrestrial and occurs in small mammal
burrows and soil cracks, sometimes in
the bottom of dried pools. Prefers open
areas with sandy or gravelly soils, in a
variety of habitats including mixed
woodlands, grasslands, coastal sage
scrub, chaparral, sandy washes,
lowlands, river floodplains, alluvial fans,
playas, alkali flats, foothills, and
mountains. Vernal or seasonal pools, that
hold water for a minimum of three
weeks, are necessary for breeding.
Unlikely. Small mammal burrows for
adults of this species to occupy in the
non-breeding season were observed
within the APE. However, no breeding
habitat was observed within the APE.
The most recent recorded observation
occurred eight miles east of the APE in
1991.
Western yellow-billed
cuckoo
(Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis)
FT, CE Suitable nesting habitat in California
includes dense riparian willowcottonwood and mesquite habitats along a perennial river. Once common in the
California Central Valley, as well as
coastal valleys and riparian habitats east
of the Sierra Nevada, habitat loss now
constrains the California breeding
population to small numbers of birds.
Absent. The APE is outside the current
known range of this species.
167
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-27
*EXPLANATION OF OCCURRENCE DESIGNATIONS AND STATUS CODES
Present: Species observed on the APE at time of field surveys or during recent past.
Possible: Species not observed on the APE, but it could occur there from time to time.
Unlikely: Species not observed on the APE, and would not be expected to occur there except, perhaps, as a transient.
Absent: Species not observed on the APE and precluded from occurring there due to absence of suitable habitat.
STATUS CODES
FE Federally Endangered CE California Endangered
FT Federally Threatened CT California Threatened
FPT Federally Threatened (Proposed) CSSC California Species of Special Concern
CNPS LISTING
1B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in 2B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere California, but more common elsewhere.
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Of the 23 regionally occurring special status plant species, all 23 are considered absent from or unlikely to occur within the APE due to past or ongoing disturbance and/or the absence of suitable habitat. These species include: alkali sink goldfields, brittlescale, calico monkeyflower, California jewelflower, California alkali grass, California satintail, Coulter’s goldfields, Earlimart orache, Greene’s tuctoria, heartscale, Hoover’s spurge, Kaweah brodiaea, lassics lupine, lesser saltscale, recurved larkspur, Sanford’s arrowhead, San Joaquin adobe sunburst, San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass, spiny-sepaled button-celery, striped adobe-lily, subtle orache, vernal pool smallscale, and winter’s sunflower.
Since it is unlikely that these species would occur onsite, implementation of the proposed Project should have no impact on these 23 special status species through construction mortality, disturbance, or loss of habitat. Mitigation measures are not warranted.
Of the 23 regionally occurring special status animal species, 16 are considered absent from or unlikely to occur within the APE due to past or ongoing disturbance and/or the absence of suitable habitat. These species include blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Buena Vista Lake ornate shrew, California condor, California tiger salamander, Crotch’s bumble bee, foothill yellow-legged frog, northern California legless lizard, northern leopard frog, northwestern pond turtle, Tipton kangaroo rat, tricolored blackbird, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, western spadefoot, and western yellow-billed cuckoo.
Since it is unlikely that these species would occur onsite, implementation of the proposed Project should have no impact on these 16 special status species through construction mortality, disturbance, or loss of habitat. Mitigation measures are not warranted.
General Project-Related Impacts
The proposed Project has the potential to impact a number of sensitive resources, as described in more detail in the following sections. Impacts to these resources would be a violation of State and federal laws or considered a potentially significant impact under CEQA and NEPA. Implementation of mitigation 168
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-28
measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 will help reduce potential impacts to these resources to a less than significant level and will help with complying with state and federal laws protecting these resources. These mitigation measures are identified in Section 4.4.3 below.
Project-Related Mortality and/or Nest Abandonment of Migratory Birds, Raptors, and Special Status Birds The APE contains suitable nesting and foraging habitat for a variety of protected bird species, such as migratory birds, raptors, and special status birds. The survey was conducted within the nesting bird season, and no active nests were observed. However, protected birds could nest on the ground or in shrubs, trees, or structures within the APE and forage within the APE. Swainson’s hawk and loggerhead shrike are the special status birds observed during the field survey. Protected birds located within or adjacent to the APE during construction have the potential to be injured or killed by project-related activities. In addition to the direct “take” of protected birds within the APE or adjacent areas, these birds nesting in these areas could be disturbed by project-related activities resulting in nest abandonment.
Projects that adversely affect the nesting success of protected birds or result in the mortality of these birds would be a violation of state and federal laws and considered a significant impact under CEQA.
While foraging habitat for protected birds is present on the site, suitable foraging habitat is located adjacent to the site and within the vicinity of the site. Loss of the foraging habitat from implementation of the proposed Project is not considered a significant impact.
Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-3 through BIO-5 will reduce potential impacts to protected nesting birds to a less than significant level under CEQA and will help the project comply with State and federal laws protecting these bird species. These mitigation measures are identified in Section 4.4.3 below.
Project-Related Mortality and/or Disturbance to Burrowing Owl The Project area contains suitable nesting and foraging habitat for burrowing owls (BUOWs).
Construction activities that adversely affect the nesting success of burrowing owls or result in the mortality of individuals constitute a violation of State and federal laws and would be considered a significant impact under CEQA and NEPA. While the proposed Project may remove some potential foraging habitat for BUOW, there is abundant foraging habitat adjacent to the site that could be used, and implementation of the project would not significantly reduce potential foraging habitat for this species. Therefore, no mitigation measures are warranted for loss of BUOW foraging habitat.
Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-6 through BIO-8 would reduce potential impacts to nesting or roosting BUOW to a less than significant level under CEQA and NEPA and ensure compliance with state and federal laws protecting this avian species. These mitigation measures are identified in Section 4.4.3 below.
Project-Related Mortality and/or Disturbance of Maternity Roosting Bats and Special Status Bats The oak trees and bridges adjacent to the APEs could support maternity roosting bats and roosting special status roosting bats, including the pallid bat and western mastiff bat, which are California species of special concern. Roosting habitat becomes especially sensitive to all bat species during the maternity roosting season (generally March 1 to August 31, depending on location and temperatures during a given year) and winter season. During the winter, some bats, including pallid bat and western mastiff bat, may roost within the bridges adjacent to the APE. Bats are not expected to overwinter in the oak trees due to 169
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-29
their inability to retain heat in the winter. Projects that impact maternity roosting bats or roosting special status bats would be considered a significant impact under CEQA.
Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-9 through BIO-11 will reduce potential impacts to maternity roosting bats and roosting special status bats to a less than significant level under CEQA. These mitigation measures are identified in Section 4.4.3 below.
Project-Related Mortality and/or Disturbance to San Joaquin Kit Fox The Project area contains suitable denning and foraging habitat for San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF). SJKF denning within the Project area during construction have the potential to be injured or killed by projectrelated activities. Projects that result in the mortality of individuals would be considered a violation of state and federal laws and considered a potentially significant impact under CEQA and NEPA. While the Project area may remove some potential foraging habitat for SJKF, there is abundant foraging habitat adjacent to the site that could be used, and implementation of the proposed Project would not significantly reduce potential foraging habitat for this species. Therefore, no mitigation measures are warranted for loss of SJKF foraging habitat.
Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-12 through BIO-14 will reduce potential impacts to SJKF to a less than significant level under CEQA and NEPA and will ensure compliance with state and federal laws protecting this species. These mitigation measures are identified in Section 4.4.3 below.
Project-Related Mortality and/or Disturbance to American Badger The Project area contains grassland habitat that could potentially be used by American badger. American badgers denning within the Project area during construction have the potential to be injured or killed by project-related activities. Projects that result in the mortality of individuals would be considered a potentially significant impact under CEQA and NEPA.
Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-15 through BIO-18 will reduce potential impacts to American badgers to a less than significant level under CEQA and NEPA. The following measures will be implemented prior to the start of construction. These mitigation measures are identified in Section 4.4.3 below.
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. Riparian habitat is absent from the APE and adjacent lands. There are no CNDDB-designated “natural communities of special concern” recorded within the APE or surrounding lands. Mitigation is not warranted.
c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less than Significant Impact. The appropriate permits required through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, CDFW, and/or the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) will be obtained if required. An Aquatic Resources Delineation will be conducted to document the boundaries of potential jurisdictional aquatic features within the Project area. 170
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-30
If construction would involve ground disturbance over an area greater than one acre, the proposed Project would be required to obtain a Construction Stormwater General Permit under the Storm Water Program administered by the RWQCB. A prerequisite for this permit is the development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) so activities do not adversely affect water quality. With implementation of a SWPPP, impacts would be less than significant. d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery site?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Most of the Project area does not contain features that would be likely to function as wildlife movement corridors. Cameron Creek could be potentially used as a wildlife movement corridor, but disturbance to this creek would be temporary in nature and would not disturb wildlife movement. Furthermore, the proposed Project islocated in an area regularly disturbed by humans which would discourage dispersal and migration.
The Project area has suitable features (buildings and trees) that could be used by maternity roosting bats, which are considered native wildlife nursery sites. The potential impacts to maternity roosting bats have been addressed in mitigation measures BIO-9 through BIO-11. It is likely other native species would utilize any features of the APE as a wildlife nursery site.
e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. The Project appears to be consistent with the goals and policies of the Tulare County General Plan and the City of Visalia Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. While there are valley oak trees present within the vicinity of the Project, the Project would not necessitate the removal or disturbance of any oak trees whatsoever. There are no known Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) or Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCPs) in the Project vicinity. There would be no impact and mitigation measures are not warranted.
f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The proposed Project is not located within the boundaries of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. There would be no impact and mitigation measures are not warranted.
Mitigation
General Project-Related Impacts
(WEAP Training): Prior to initiating construction activities (including staging and mobilization), all personnel associated with project construction will attend a mandatory Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training, conducted by a “qualified biologist”(someone who is familiar with the species on the document), to aid workers in identifying special status resources that may occur in the APE. The specifics of this program will include identification of the sensitive species and suitable habitats, a description of the regulatory status and general ecological characteristics of sensitive 171
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-31
resources, and review of the limits of construction and mitigation measures required to reduce impacts to biological resources within the work area. This training will discuss special status species, describe the laws and regulations in place to provide protection of these species, identify the penalties for violation of applicable environmental laws and regulations, and include a list of required protective measures to avoid “take.” A fact sheet summarizing this information, along with photographs or illustrations of sensitive species with potential to occur on the APE, will also be prepared for distribution to all contractors, their employees, and all other personnel involved with construction of the project. All trainees will sign a form documenting that they have attended WEAP training and understand the information presented to them.
(BMPs): The project proponent will require that all workers employ the following best management practices (BMPs) in order to avoid and minimize potential impacts to special status species:
• Vehicles will observe a 15-mph speed limit while on unpaved access routes. • Workers will inspect areas beneath parked vehicles, equipment, and materials prior to mobilization. If special status species are detected, the individual will either be allowed to leave of its own volition or will be captured by the “qualified biologist” (must possess appropriate collecting/handling permits) and relocated out of harm’s way to the nearest suitable habitat beyond the influence of the project work area. “Take” of a state or federal special status (rare, California Species of Special Concern, threatened, or endangered) species is prohibited. • The presence of any special status species will be reported to the project’s “qualified biologist”, who will submit the occurrence to the CNDDB. If necessary, the biologist will report the occurrence to CDFW and/or USFWS.
Project-Related Mortality and/or Nest Abandonment of Migratory Birds, Raptors, and Special Status Birds (Avoidance): The project’s construction activities will occur, if feasible, between September 16 and January 31 (outside of the nesting bird season) to avoid impacts to nesting birds.
(Pre-construction Surveys): If activities must occur within nesting bird season (February 1 to September 15), a “qualified biologist”(someone who is familiar with bird identification and nesting bird surveys) will conduct a pre-construction survey for Swainson’s hawk nests onsite and within a 0.5-mile radius within 5 calendar days prior to the start of construction. This survey will be conducted in accordance with the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson's Hawk Nesting Surveys in California's Central Valley (Swainson's Hawk Technical Advisory Committee 2000), or current guidance. The Swainson’s hawk survey will not be completed between April 21 to June 10 due to the difficulty of identifying nests during this time of year. The survey would also include inspecting for nesting migratory birds within the APE and up to 50 feet outside of the APE, and for other nesting raptors within and up to 450 feet outside of the APE. All raptor nests would be considered “active” upon the nest-building stage.
If no active nests are observed, no further mitigation is required. 172
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-32
(Avoidance Buffers): On discovery of any active nests or breeding colonies near work areas, a “qualified biologist” will determine appropriate avoidance buffer distances based on applicable CDFW and/or USFWS guidelines, the biology of the species, conditions of the nest(s), and the level of project disturbance. If necessary, avoidance buffers will be identified with flagging, fencing, or other easily visible means, and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the nestlings have fledged. (Consultation with CDFW): In the event an active Swainson’s hawk nest is detected within or adjacent to the APE and an appropriate avoidance buffer cannot be imple-mented, CDFW will be consulted to determine how to protect the nest so the Project may proceed.
Project-Related Mortality and/or Disturbance to Burrowing Owl (Pre-construction Take Avoidance Survey): A “qualified biologist” (someone who is familiar with species identification and their sign, and habitat use) will conduct a preconstruction take avoidance survey for BUOW and suitable burrows, in accordance with CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012), within seven (7) days prior to the start of construction activities. The survey shall include the proposed work area and surrounding lands up to 500 feet. If no BUOW individuals or active burrows are observed, no further mitigation is required. If construction is hauled for (7) consecutive days another pre-activity survey shall be completed.
(Avoidance): If an active BUOW burrow is detected, the occurrence will be reported to the CNDDB, and avoidance buffers shall be implemented. A “qualified biologist” will determine appropriate avoidance buffer distances based on applicable CDFW and/or USFWS guidelines, the biology of the species, conditions of the burrow(s), and the level of project disturbance. If necessary, avoidance buffers will be identified with flagging, fencing, or other easily visible means, and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the nestlings have fledged and all BUOW have left the Project area. (Passive Relocation): If an active BUOW burrow is detected within the proposed work area and cannot be avoided, it is rec-ommended the Project obtain an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) in order to implement a passive reloca-tion plan. Passive relocation will occur during the non-breeding season (September 1 through January 31) or during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31) if a “qualified biologist” determines that there are no young in the burrow. A “qualified biologist” will prepare the passive relocation plan that would detail the methods to be used. It would include the tools to exclude the BUOW from its burrow (i.e., one-way doors or other devices) and excavate the burrow (hand tools and machinery, if needed).If avoidance of an active BUOW burrow is not feasible, passive relocation during the non-breeding season (September 1 through January 31) could be utilized or during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31) if a “qualified biologist” determines that there are no young in the burrow.
Prior to completion a “qualified biologist” will prepare a passive relocation plan that would detail the methods to be used. It would include the tools to exclude the BUOW from its burrow (i.e., one-way doors or other devices) and excavate the burrow (hand tools and machinery, if needed). Following completion of passive relocation, a report will be prepared that would document the methods and results of these efforts. 173
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-33
Project-Related Mortality and/or Disturbance of Maternity Roosting Bats and Special Status Bats (Focused Surveys): Within seven days prior to the start of construction activities focused surveys will be conducted by a “qualified biologist” (someone who is familiar with the roosting behavior and habitat of the species and can identify the species sign). They will include a daytime roost survey and dusk emergence survey. The daytime roost survey will include surveying for roosting bats within potentially suitable structures (i.e., oak trees and bridges) within and adjacent to each APE, where accessible.
The dusk emergence survey will include surveying for emerging bats at areas where bat sign or likely bat roost areas were observed during the daytime roost survey. It should be conducted on a warm night during dry weather conditions and from approximately 15 minutes before sunset to 1 hour after sunset. If no roosting bats are discovered tree or branch removal must be completed within two days.
(Avoidance Buffers): Should any active bat roosts be observed during the focused surveys, a “qualified biologist” will determine appropriate avoidance buffers (i.e., construction setback distances) based on the biology of the species, conditions of the roost(s), and the level of project disturbance, if appropriate. If necessary, avoidance buffers will be identified with flagging, fencing, or other easily visible means, and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the roost will no longer be impacted by construction.
(Eviction): If avoidance buffers are not feasible and it has been determined by a “qualified biologist” that the bats are no longer raising their young or are overwintering, the bats may be evicted. An eviction plan will first be prepared by a “qualified biologist” that identifies the materials and methods that will be used to safely evict the bats.
Project-Related Mortality and/or Disturbance to San Joaquin Kit Fox (Pre-Construction Survey): Within fourteen (14) days prior to the start of construction a “qualified biologist” will conduct a pre-construction survey for San Joaquin kit fox will be conducted on and within 200 feet of proposed work areas. (Establish Buffers): On discovery of any SJKF dens near the project area a “qualified biologist” (someone familiar with the identification and sign of this species) will determine appropriate construction setback distances (buffer zones) based on applicable CDFW and/or USFWS guidelines (see below). If needed, construction buffers will be identified with flagging, fencing, or other easily visible means. They will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the den will no longer be impacted by construction.
1. At least 100 feet around den(s);
2. At least 200 feet around natal dens (which SJKF young are reared); and
3. At least 500 feet around any natal dens with pups (except for any portions of the buffer zone that is already fully developed).
174
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-34
(Avoidance and Minimization): The project will observe all avoidance and minimization measures during construction and on-going operational activities as required by the “qualified biologist” and the USFWS’s Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011), including, but not limited to: maintaining buffer zones, construction speed limits, covering of pipes, installation of escape structures, restriction of herbicide and rodenticide use, proper disposal of food items and trash, prohibition of pets and firearms, and completion of an employee education program (see BIO-1).
Project-Related Mortality and/or Disturbance to American Badger (Pre-construction Take Avoidance Survey): A “qualified biologist” (someone familiar with the identification and sign of this species) will conduct a pre-construction survey of project areas within seven (7) days prior to vegetation clearing or ground disturbing activities. The goal of this survey is to search for potential badger dens. (Remote Cameras): If potential dens for American badger are detected during the preconstruction survey, each potential den will be monitored with remote cameras for a period of three consecutive nights. If there is no activity at the den location recorded for three consecutive nights, the den can be deemed “inactive” or “unoccupied” and closed or excavated.
(Den Avoidance): If an American badger is denning on or within 50 feet of the project site, the project proponent shall avoid the den by a minimum 50-foot buffer. (Eviction and Den Excavation): If an American badger is denning on or within 50 feet of the project site and it cannot be avoided, the badger may be evicted, and the den excavated outside of the natal season (generally March 15 – June 15) or if it is determined that there are no kits in the den. Prior to the planned eviction and den excavation, a remote camera will be placed at the den entrance for a minimum of three consecutive nights to record the general time when the badger leaves the den. If it is outside of the natal season or it is determined by a “qualified biologist” that there are no “kits” present in the den the badger will be evicted from the den and the den excavated by hand, with the assistance of machinery, after it has left the den for that night. Should any “kits” be discovered during the excavation the work will stop and the crew will leave the site immediately so the female can rescue her kits and relocate them. 175
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-35
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Table 4-11: Cultural Resources Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries?
Baseline Conditions
As the oldest Central Valley city south of Stockton, Visalia hosts an impressive collection of historic sites and structures, including four that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Numerous distinctive architectural styles are present in Visalia, concentrated in the city’s historic core; particularly notable examples are recorded in the city’s local registry.10 Visalia was settled in 1852 and incorporated as a city in 1874. In its early years the City was a supply center for nearby gold mining operations, and had an agricultural economy based on livestock. The construction of the Southern Pacific Railroad through the Valley in 1872 triggered a shift in the agricultural economy from cattle toward field crops. The next major economic change was brought about by the availability of irrigation water, resulting in the conversion of large grain fields to small farms, where citrus, grapes, olives, and deciduous fruits were raised. These crops are a mainstay of the region’s economy today. 11 Class III Inventory/Phase I Survey
An intensive Phase I Cultural Resource survey of the Project area was conducted by ASM Associates (ASM) Archaeologists in July 2024. The field methods employed included intensive pedestrian examination of the ground surface for evidence of archaeological sites in the form of artifacts, surface features (such as bedrock mortars, historical mining equipment), and archaeological indicators (e.g., organically enriched midden soil, burnt animal bone); the identification and location of any discovered sites, should they be present; tabulation and recording of surface diagnostic artifacts; site sketch mapping; preliminary evaluation of site integrity; and site recording, following the California Office of Historic Preservation Instructions for Recording Historic Resources (See Appendix C).
The Phase I survey fieldwork employed parallel transects spaced at 15-meter intervals walked across the survey area. (See Appendix C)
10 (Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners 2014)
11 Ibid.
176
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-36
Records Search
A records search from the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), located at California State University, Bakersfield was conducted in June 2024. The SSJVIC records search includes a review of all recorded archaeological and built-environment resources as well as a review of cultural resource reports on file. In addition, the California Points of Historical Interest, the California Historical Landmarks, the California Register of Historical Resources, the National Register of Historic Places, and the California State Built Environment Resources Directory listings were reviewed for the Project area and an additional 0.5-mile radius. Due to the sensitive nature of cultural resources, archaeological site locations are not released. Additional sources included the State Office of Historic Preservation Historic Properties Directory, Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, and the California Inventory of Historic Resources. (See Appendix C) Native American Outreach
The NAHC in Sacramento was contacted in June 2024. They were provided with a brief description of the proposed Project and a map showing its location and requested that the NAHC perform a search of the Sacred Lands File to determine if any Native American resources have been recorded in the immediate Project area. The NAHC identifies, catalogs, and protects Native American cultural resources -- ancient places of special religious or social significance to Native Americans and known ancient graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private and public lands in California. The NAHC is also charged with ensuring California Native American tribes’ accessibility to ancient Native American cultural resources on public lands, overseeing the treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovered Native American human remains and burial items, and administering the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, among many other powers and duties. NAHC provided a current list of Native American Tribal contacts in the Project area to notify of the proposed Project.
The results of the search indicated that no known sacred sites or tribal cultural resources were located within the Project area. On June 24, 2024, the City of Visalia sent outreach letters by certified mail to all the tribes listed on the NAHC contact list. Details of those outreach letter can be found below Section 4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources. No responses have been received to date.
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
a and b) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. A CHRIS records search, from the SSJVIC, was conducted by ASM in June 2024 and confirmed there have been six previous cultural resource studies conducted within the Project area and seven previous cultural resource studies conducted within the one-half mile radius. The search also confirmed that there are four recorded resources within the Project area and 12 within one-half mile radius of the Project area. It is unlikely that the proposed Project has the potential to result in significant impacts or adverse effects to any known unknown cultural or historical resources, such as archaeological remains, artifacts or historic properties or structures.
However, in the improbable event that unknown cultural resources are encountered during proposed Project construction, implementation of mitigation measure CUL-1 outlined below will reduce impacts to any historical or archaeological resource to less than significant. 177
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-37
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. There is no evidence in the record that indicates the proposed Project has the potential to be an unknown burial site or the site of buried human remains. In the unlikely event of such a discovery, mitigation shall be implemented. With incorporation of mitigation measure CUL-2 outlined below, impacts resulting from the discovery of remains interred on the Project area will be less than significant.
Mitigation
CUL-1 In the event that previously unidentified archaeological remains are encountered during development or ground-moving activities in the APE, 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-moving activities in the APE, all work shall be halted in the immediate vicinity until a qualified archaeologist can identify the discovery and assess its significance.
CUL-2 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.
178
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-38
4.6 ENERGY
Table 4-12: Energy Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
Baseline Conditions
The proposed Project would be located within Tulare County, southeast of the City of Visalia. The Project area is served by Southern California Edison (SCE) for both its electric energy needs, while it is served by Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) for its natural gas energy needs.
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than Significant Impact. Fuel consumed by construction equipment would be the primary energy resource expended over the course of Project construction. For heavy-duty construction equipment, horsepower and load factor were assumed using default data from the CalEEMod model. Fuel use associated with construction vehicle trips generated by the proposed Project was also estimated; trips include construction worker trips, haul trucks trips for material transport, and vendor trips for construction material deliveries. Fuel use from these vehicles traveling to the proposed Project was based on (1) the projected number of trips the proposed Project would generate (CalEEMod default values), (2) default average trip distance by land use in CalEEMod, and (3) fuel efficiencies estimated in the CARB 2017 Emissions Factors model (EMFAC2017) mobile source emission model.
Construction is estimated to consume a total of approximately 7,596.88 gallons of diesel fuel and approximately 546.5 gallons of gasoline fuel (see Appendix A). California Code of Regulations Title 13, Motor Vehicles, Section 2449(d)(2), Idling, limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than 5 minutes, thereby precluding unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel because of unproductive idling of construction equipment. In addition, the energy consumption for construction activities would not be ongoing as they would be limited to the duration of Project construction.
Energy consumption of non-residential uses is currently governed by the 2022 California Building Code, Part 6 for structures, and Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations for appliances. Energy consumption is anticipated to decrease over time as more energy efficient standards take effect and 179
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-39
energy-consuming equipment reaches its end-of-life and necessitates replacement. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
No Impact. State and local authorities regulate energy use and consumption. These regulations at the State level are intended to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These include, among others, AB 1493 – Light-Duty Vehicle Standards; California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6 – Energy Efficiency Standards; and California Code of Regulations Title 24, Parts 6 and 11 – California Energy Code and Green Building Standards. The proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, there would be no impacts. 180
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-40
4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Table 4-13: Geology and Soils Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994) creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geological feature?
Baseline Conditions
Geology and Soils
The proposed Project is located in western Tulare County, in the southern section of California’s Great Valley Geomorphic Province, or Central Valley. The Sacramento Valley makes up the northern third and the San Joaquin Valley makes up the southern two-thirds of the geomorphic province. Both valleys are watered by large rivers flowing west from the Sierra Nevada Range, with smaller tributaries flowing east from the Coast Ranges. Most of the surface of the Great Valley is covered by Quaternary (present day to 1.6 million years ago) alluvium. From the time the Valley first began to form, sediments derived from erosion of 181
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-41
igneous and metamorphic rocks and consolidated marine sediments in the surrounding mountains have been transported into the Valley by streams.12
Faults and Seismicity
The proposed Project is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and there are no known active faults within the City of Visalia or the region of Tulare County that the proposed Project is located in.
The nearest major faults are the Owens Valley and San Andreas Fault, located approximately 58 miles east and 72 miles southwest of the Project area, respectively.13 The San Andreas fault is the dominant active tectonic feature of the Coast Ranges and represents the boundary of the North American and Pacific plates.
The Kern Canyon Fault is located approximately 42 miles east and the Poso Fault is located approximately 50 miles south of the Project area.
14 Liquefaction
The potential for liquefaction, which is the loss of soil strength due to seismic forces, is dependent on soil types and density, the groundwater table, and the duration and intensity of ground shaking. Although no specific liquefaction hazard areas have been identified in Tulare County or the City of Visalia, this potential is recognized throughout the San Joaquin Valley where unconsolidated sediments and a high-water table coincide. Soil types along the Valley floor are not generally conducive to liquefaction because they are generally too coarse. Furthermore, according to the California Department of Water Resources Live Groundwater Levels map, the groundwater levels measured at a location approximately one mile to the southwest of the Project area was approximately 127 feet below ground surface as of October 16, 2023; this further reduces potential for liquefaction. 15
Soil Subsidence
There are two types of Subsidence: Land subsidence and hydrocompaction subsidence. Hydrocompaction subsidence occurs when a large land area settles due to over-saturation. These areas are typically composed of open-textured soils that become saturated, high in silt or clay content. Land subsidence occurs when an extensive amount of ground water, oil, or natural gas is withdrawn from below the ground surface.
Soils within the Project area consist of Grangeville Sandy Loam and Nord Fine Sandy Loam, which are coarse-textured, low in clay content, and have a low shrink-swell potential. Therefore, soils onsite represent a low risk of subsidence.
Dam and Levee Failure
The nearest dam with a high likelihood of breaching is the Bravo Lake Reservoir Dam, located approximately 10 miles to the northeast.16
12 (California Department of Conservation 2002)
13 (California Department of Conservation 2023)
14 Ibid.
15 (California Department of Water Resources 2023)
16 (California Department of Water Resources 2022)
182
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-42
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? i and ii) Less than Significant Impact. The Project area is located in an area traditionally characterized by relatively low seismic activity. The site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone as established by the Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Act (Section 2622 of Chapter 7.5, Division 2 of the California Public Resources Code).
Although there are no known earthquake faults within the vicinity of the proposed Project and strong ground shaking is unlikely, construction of the check structures would comply with the most recent seismic standards as set forth in the California Building Standards Code. Compliance with these standards would ensure potential impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact. Liquefaction occurs when loose, water-saturated sediments lose strength and fail during strong ground shaking. Although no specific liquefaction hazard areas have been identified in Tulare County and the City of Visalia, this potential is recognized throughout the San Joaquin Valley where unconsolidated sediments and a high-water table coincide. Using the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service soil survey, an analysis of the soils onsite was performed. Soils in the area consists of Grangeville Sandy Loam and Nord Fine Sandy Loam, which are well-drained and coarse-textured, representing a low risk for liquefaction or seismic-related ground failure. In addition, using California Department of Water Resources Live Groundwater Levels map, the groundwater levels measured at a location approximately one mile to the southwest of the Project area was approximately 127.6 feet below ground surface as of October 16, 2023; this further reduces potential for liquefaction. 17 Furthermore, as mentioned above in Impact Assessments 4.7.2 a) i-ii, strong seismic ground shaking is unlikely to occur. Any impacts related to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, would be less than significant.
iv. Landslides?
No Impact. Landslides usually occur in locations with steep slopes and unstable soils. The Project area is located on the Valley floor where no major geologic landforms exist, and the topography is essentially flat and level. The nearest foothills are approximately nine miles east of the Project area. Therefore, the Project area has minimal-to-no landslide susceptibility, and there would be no impact. 17 (California Department of Water Resources 2023)
183
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-43
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. Earthmoving activities associated with the proposed Project would include grading, and construction within the Cameron Creek channel. Construction would take place when the channel is empty. These activities could expose soils to erosion processes and the extent of erosion would vary depending on slope steepness/stability, vegetation/cover, concentration of runoff, and weather conditions. Dischargers whose projects disturb one (1) or more acres of soil, or whose projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling or excavation but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility. The Construction General Permit (CGP) requires the development of a SWPPP by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer. Through the completion of a SWPPP, any possible impacts from construction related activities involving soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be reduced. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? c and d) Less than Significant Impact. Soils within the Project area consist of Grangeville Sandy Loam and Nord Fine Sandy Loam, which are coarse-textured, low in clay content, and well-drained. These soils have a low shrink-swell potential and a low plasticity index, and therefore, are not considered expansive soils.
Furthermore, the aforementioned physical properties of these soils make subsidence, liquefaction, lateral spreading, or other ground failure unlikely. Any impacts would be considered less than significant. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. Septic installation or alternative wastewater disposal systems are not necessary for the proposed Project. There would be no impact.
f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?
Less than Significant Impact. No known paleontological resources have been identified at the Project area. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 184
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-44
4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Table 4-14: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
Baseline Conditions
Commonly identified GHG emissions and sources include the following:
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an odorless, colorless natural GHG. CO2 is emitted from natural and anthropogenic sources. Natural sources include the following: decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic out gassing. Anthropogenic sources include the burning of coal, oil, natural gas, and wood.
Methane (CH4) is a flammable GHG. A natural source of methane is the anaerobic decay of organic matter. Geological deposits, known as natural gas fields, also contain methane, which is extracted for fuel. Other sources are from landfills, fermentation of manure, and ruminants such as cattle.
Nitrous oxide (N2O), also known as laughing gas, is a colorless GHG. N2O is produced by microbial processes in soil and water, including those reactions that occur in fertilizer containing nitrogen. In addition to agricultural sources, some industrial processes (fossil fuel-fired power plants, nylon production, nitric acid production, and vehicle emissions) also contribute to its atmospheric load.
Water vapor is the most abundant, and variable GHG. It is not considered a pollutant; in the atmosphere, it maintains a climate necessary for life.
Ozone (O3) is known as a photochemical pollutant and is a GHG; however, unlike other GHGs, ozone in the troposphere is relatively short-lived and, therefore, is not global in nature. O3 is not emitted directly into the atmosphere but is formed by a complex series of chemical reactions between volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, and sunlight.
Aerosols are suspensions of particulate matter in a gas emitted into the air through burning biomass (plant material) and fossil fuels. Aerosols can warm the atmosphere by absorbing and emitting heat and can cool the atmosphere by reflecting light.
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the earth’s surface). CFCs were first synthesized in 1928 for use as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents. CFCs destroy stratospheric ozone; therefore, their production was stopped as required by the Montreal Protocol in 1987. 185
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-45
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are synthetic chemicals that are used as a substitute for CFCs. Of all the GHGs, HFCs are one of three groups (the other two are perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride) with the highest global warming potential. HFCs are human-made for applications such as air conditioners and refrigerants.
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) have stable molecular structures and do not break down through the chemical processes in the lower atmosphere; therefore, PFCs have long atmospheric lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000 years. The two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacture.
Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It has the highest global warming potential of any gas evaluated. Sulfur hexafluoride is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas for leak detection.
There are uncertainties as to exactly what the climate changes will be in various local areas of the earth, and what the effects of clouds will be in determining the rate at which the mean temperature will increase.
There are also uncertainties associated with the magnitude and timing of other consequences of a warmer planet: sea level rise, spread of certain diseases out of their usual geographic range, the effect on agricultural production, water supply, sustainability of ecosystems, increased strength and frequency of storms, extreme heat events, air pollution episodes, and the consequence of these effects on the economy.
Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are largely attributable to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors.
About three-quarters of human emissions of CO2 to the global atmosphere during the past 20 years are due to fossil fuel burning. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O have increased by at least 40 percent, 150 percent, and 20 percent respectively since the year 1750. GHG emissions are typically expressed in carbon dioxide-equivalents (CO2e), based on the GHG’s Global Warming Potential (GWP). The GWP is dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. For example, one ton of CH4 has the same contribution to the greenhouse effect as approximately 25 tons of CO2.
Therefore, CH4 is a much more potent GHG than CO2. In accordance with SJVAPCD’s CEQA Greenhouse Gas Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects, proposed projects complying with Best Performance Standards (BPS) would be determined to have a less-thansignificant impact.18 Projects not complying with BPS would be considered less than significant if operational GHG emissions would be reduced or mitigated by a minimum of 29 percent, in comparison to business-as-usual (year 2004) conditions. In addition, project-generated emissions complying with an approved plan or mitigation program would also be determined to have a less-than-significant impact.
Impact Analysis
Project Related Emissions
Short-term construction emissions associated with the proposed Project were calculated using CalEEMod, Version 2022.1.1.26. The emissions modeling includes emissions generated by off-road equipment, haul trucks, and worker commute trips. Emissions were quantified based on an anticipated construction schedule of approximately four months. The Project proposes to construct three check structures along Cameron Creek. For modeling purposes, inputs assumed construction of a singular check structure, 18 (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2009) 186
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-46
however the analysis contained herein triples the estimated emissions to quantify the expected emissions for the entirety of the Project. Remaining assumptions were based on the default parameters contained in the model. Modeling assumptions and output files are included in Appendix A. Estimated constructiongenerated emissions are summarized in Table 4-15. GHGs impact the environment over time as they increase and contribute to climate change. As discussed in Section 4.3, the amount of operational related emissions generated would be considered negligible.
Table 4-15: Short Term Construction Related GHG Emissions Emissions (MT CO2e) in Tons per
Year
Maximum Annual Construction CO2e Emissions 150.6
AB 32 Consistency Threshold for Land-Use Development Projects* 1,1OO AB 32 Consistency Threshold for Stationary Source Projects* 10,000 Threshold Exceeded? No
* As published in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Available online at http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed 8/7/24.
Construction related generation of GHGs would be a maximum of 150.6 Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (MT CO2e) per year. While some operational emissions could result from the proposed Project, this quantity would be negligible. The proposed Project would not exceed the AB 32 consistency threshold for land use projects for both short term construction emissions and long-term operational emissions as a result.
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. As shown in Table 4-15, the proposed Project is not expected to result in the generation of GHG emissions that would exceed the AB32 consistency threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e annually during both construction and operational activities.
Long term operational activities would result in negligible quantities of GHG emissions being generated due to use of pumps, valves, and associated water conveyance infrastructure. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No Impact. The proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. The proposed Project would be in compliance with all SJVAPCD policies and regulations and would not exceed an applicable threshold for GHG emissions.
Therefore, there would be no impacts.
187
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-47
4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Table 4-16: Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly
or indirectly to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires?
Baseline Conditions
Hazardous Materials
The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List is a planning document used by the State, local agencies, and developers to comply with CEQA requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. Government Code (GC) Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to develop an updated Cortese List at least annually. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese List. Other State and local government agencies are required to provide additional hazardous material release information for the Cortese List. DTSC's EnviroStor database provides DTSC's component of Cortese 188
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-48
List data (DTSC, 2010). In addition to the EnviroStor database, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database provides information on regulated hazardous waste facilities in California, including underground storage tank (UST) cases and non-UST cleanup programs, including Spills-LeaksInvestigations-Cleanups sites, Department of Defense sites, and Land Disposal program. A search of the DTSC EnviroStor19 database and the SWRCB GeoTracker20 performed on July 11, 2024, determined that there are no known active hazardous waste generators or hazardous material spill sites within the Project area or immediate surrounding vicinity.
Airports
The Project area would be located approximately seven miles southeast of the Visalia Municipal Airport.
The proposed Project would not be located within an adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP).
Emergency Response Plan
The City of Visalia has an Emergency Operations Plan that was adopted in 2011. The plan lays out the planned procedures that the City would follow in the event of an emergency.
The Tulare County Office of Emergency Services coordinates the development and maintenance of the Tulare County Operational Area Master Emergency Services Plan.
Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive Receptors are groups that would be more affected by air, noise, and light pollution, pesticides, and other toxic chemicals than others. This includes infants, children under 16, elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. High concentrations of these groups would include daycares, residential areas, hospitals, elder care facilities, schools and parks. The nearest sensitive receptors include the scattered residences adjacent to Cameron Creek.
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
a and b) Less than Significant Impact. Equipment and materials used during construction activities would include fuels, oils and lubricants. The routine use or an accidental spill of hazardous materials used in construction could result in inadvertent releases, which could adversely affect construction workers, the public, and the environment. Construction activities would be required to comply with numerous hazardous materials regulations designed to ensure that hazardous materials are transported, used, stored, and disposed of in a safe manner to protect worker safety, and to reduce the potential for a release of construction-related fuels or other hazardous materials into the environment, including stormwater and downstream receiving water bodies. As discussed in Section 4.7 Geology and Soils, the construction contractor would be required to apply for coverage under the CGP, which requires the 19 (California Department of Toxic Substances Control 2022) 20 (State of California 2022)
189
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-49
preparation and implementation of a SWPPP for construction activities on sites with more than one acre of ground disturbance. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations would minimize hazards associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, compliance with applicable laws and regulations would lower any potential impacts from foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment to a less than significant level. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The proposed Project is not located within a quarter mile of any schools. Therefore, there would be no impact.
d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. The Project area is not on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to GC Section 65962.5, according to the EnviroStor and GeoTracker databases identified above. As a result, the proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment due to the Project being located on an existing hazardous material site. Therefore, there would be no impact. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The Project area is not located within an ALUCP, nor is it located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Therefore, there would be no impact. f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project includes the construction of three check structures in Cameron Creek to control flow rates to improve in-creek recharge. Construction traffic associated with the proposed Project would be minimal and temporary, lasting approximately four months. Operational traffic would consist of as-needed maintenance trips and would have no effect on roadways or emergency access. Road closures and detours are not anticipated as part of the construction phase of the proposed Project. Therefore, proposed Project-related impacts to emergency evacuation routes or emergency response routes on local roadways would be considered less than significant. g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. The proposed Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. As discussed more thoroughly in Section
4.20, the Project area is not located in an area that has been designated as being a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or as being a very high fire hazard severity zone. Therefore, there would be no impact. 190
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-50
4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Table 4-17: Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground
water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
i. result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site;
ii. substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
off-site;
iii. create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Baseline Conditions
Hydrology in the Project area is associated with the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region, containing three main subbasins. The Tulare Lake subbasin is in the northern alluvial fan and basin subarea characterized by southwest to south flowing rivers, creeks, and irrigation canal systems that convey water from the Sierra Nevada to the west toward the Tulare Lakebed. The southern portion of the basin is internally drained by the Kings, Kaweah, Tule, and Kern Rivers.21 The Tulare Lake Basin comprises the drainage area of the San Joaquin Valley south of the San Joaquin River and is essentially a closed basin because surface water drains 21 (California Department of Water Resources. Natural Resources Agency 2015) 191
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-51
north into the San Joaquin River only in years of extreme rainfall. The Project area is located within two watersheds, the Lower Cross Creek and the Middle Branch Cross Creek.22 A watershed is the topographic region that drains into a stream, river, or lake. Watersheds are made up of many smaller subwatersheds that drain into a particular stream, river, or lake. The nearest surface water to the proposed Project is Cameron Creek which is a part of the Project area. Cameron Creek is a controlled water way that is inundated infrequently. The creek runs southwest of Visalia where it eventually splits and spills into a water basin but also continues a short distance before it merges with Packwood Creek.
The Project area is located within the Greater Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency’s (GKGSA) boundary.23 The GKGSA is one of the three GSAs that manage the underlying Kaweah Subbasin.24 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed Project could introduce sediments and other contaminants typically associated with construction into stormwater runoff. Although the Project would be constructed during the dry season when there is no water in Cameron Creek, the unlikely potential of stormwater flowing through the proposed Project during construction could carry various pollutants downstream. Potential pollutants include sediment, nutrients, bacteria and viruses, oil and grease, heavy metals, organics, pesticides, and miscellaneous waste. These pollutants could originate from soil disturbances, construction equipment, building materials, and workers. Erosion potential and water quality impacts are always present during construction and occur when protective vegetative cover is removed, and soils are disturbed. In the case of the proposed Project, grading and cut and fill are the primary construction activities associated with facility improvements.
As discussed in Section 4.7 Geology and Soils, the proposed Project would require coverage under the CGP. In accordance with the requirements of the CGP, prior to construction of the proposed Project, a risk assessment must be prepared and submitted to the Central Valley RWQCB to determine the proposed Project’s risk level and associated water quality control requirements. These requirements would include the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP identifying specific BMPs to be implemented and maintained on the site in order to comply with the applicable effluent standards. The CGP requires construction sites to be inspected before and after storm events and every 24 hours during extended storm events. Inspections identify any BMP maintenance requirements and determine the effectiveness of the BMPs. Other than the potential minor drainage changes compared to baseline conditions, the proposed Project would not include activities that would substantially degrade water quality. Compliance with the RWQCB requirements would ensure that water quality impacts during the construction phase of the proposed Project would be less than significant. b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
22 (United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 2023) 23 (California Department of Water Resources 2023)
24 (Greater Kaweah GSA 2023)
192
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-52
Less than Significant Impact.The purpose of the proposed Project is to improve groundwater recharge within the existing Cameron Creek channel. Implementation of the Project would increase the local groundwater table. Any impacts to the underlying groundwater supply would be less than significant. c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
c i-iv) Less than Significant Impact.. The addition of the three proposed check structures within Cameron Creek would increase water recharge capabilities by pooling waters within Cameron Creek, facilitating passive recharge. Alteration of the course of Cameron Creek would not occur, as the check structures would be placed within the existing Creek. In addition, potential damaging storm and/or flood waters would be detained on site, to the extent of available capacity, where a portion of such detained flows would percolate to useable groundwater. The remaining detained supply would be released when either damage is occurring due to the continued detention, or sufficient downstream channel capacity exists to allow for non-damaging passage of such retained volumes. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d) Would the project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundations?
Less than Significant Impact.. As seen in Figure 4-9, two of the three proposed check structures would be located in a Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) flood zone. The construction and operation of the proposed Project is subject to water quality standards based on Clean Water Act Section 401 and Section 404 requirements. Furthermore, as mentioned throughout this document, the proposed Project would be required to comply with the requirements of the RWQCB CGP, which requires implementation of a SWPPP. Therefore, by complying with said regulations, impacts would be less than significant. e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than Significant Impact. As mentioned, the proposed Project would require coverage under the RWQCB CGP. In accordance with the requirements of the CGP, a risk assessment would be prepared and submitted to the Central Valley RWQCB to determine the proposed Project’s risk level and associated water quality control requirements. These requirements would include the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP identifying specific BMPs to be implemented and maintained on the site in order to comply with the applicable effluent standards and prevent any potential groundwater quality impacts. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with a water quality control plan. 193
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-53
Additionally, the proposed Project would increase recharge in Cameron Creek, ultimately enhancing groundwater levels. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with the GKGSA Groundwater Sustainability Plan but would align with it. Impacts would be less than significant. 194
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-54
Figure 4-9: FEMA Flood Map
195
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-55
4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 4-18: Land Use and Planning Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Physically divide an established
community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Baseline Conditions
The proposed Project is located in Tulare County, which is the land use authority for the Project area. The land use designation for the project site as identified in the City of Visalia General Plan is Conservation. The Project area itself does not have a Zoning designation as it consists of the existing Cameron Creek channel.
Lands surrounding Cameron Creek contain both County of Tulare and the City of Visalia designations (see Figure 2-4 and Figure 2-5).
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project entails constructing three check structures along Cameron Creek in Tulare County adjacent to the southeast quadrant of Visalia. Developing the site further would benefit agricultural operations by slowing down creek flow and allowing water to pool, thereby increasing recharge. Since the creek is already an established entity, the construction of the check structures would not disrupt existing communities. In addition, no aspect of the proposed Project would result any obstructions that would physically divide an established community. Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact.
b) Would the project cause a significant environmental conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than Significant Impact. The land use designation for the project site as identified in the City of Visalia General Plan is Conservation. The Project area does not have a Zoning designation as it consists of the existing Cameron Creek channel. The surrounding lands adjacent to the proposed check structures are designated for various uses, as seen in Figure 2-4 and Figure 2-5. While the proposed Project would utilize some of these lands for construction equipment laydown purposes, it would be temporary, and all construction equipment would be removed once construction is complete. At the conclusion of construction activities, the laydown areas would be returned to existing conditions as it was prior to proposed Project implementation. Implementation of the proposed Project would not create any significant environmental conflicts with existing land use plans, policies, or regulations, as it conforms to established land use standards. Impacts would be less than significant. 196
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-56
4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Table 4-19: Mineral Resources Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
Baseline Conditions
Visalia is part of the Central Valley region, one of several geomorphic provinces in California. The most economically significant mineral resources in Tulare County are sand, gravel, and crushed stone, used as sources for aggregate (road materials and other construction). The two major sources of aggregate are alluvial deposits (riverbeds, and floodplains), and hard rock quarries. Consequently, most Tulare County mines are located along rivers at the base of the Sierra foothills. Surface mining in California is regulated through the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), a State law adopted in 1975 to address the dual goals of protecting the state’s need for a continuing supply of mineral resources, while protecting public and environmental health. SMARA requires that all cities incorporate into their general plans mapped mineral resource designations approved by the State Mining and Geology Board. The Visalia Planning Area contains three former sand and gravel mines, but no currently operating mines and no designated Mineral Resource Zones.25
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. According to the City of Visalia General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report, the City of Visalia Planning Area, which includesthe Project area, does not contain land designated as mineral resource zone26. Also, there are no active mining operations, therefore there would be no impact. b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. As discussed above, there are no active mining operations or lands designated as a mineral resource zone in the City of Visalia’s Planning Area, therefore the proposed Project would not result in 25 (CIty of Visalia, Dyett & Bhatia, Urban and Regional Planners, ICF International, Provost and Pritchard Consulting Group, Omni-Means, Transportation Planners and Engineers 2014) 26 Ibid.
197
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-57
the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. There would be no impact. 198
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-58
4.13 NOISE
Table 4-20: Noise Impacts
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive ground borne
vibration or ground borne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Baseline Conditions
The Project area is located in an area that has historically been used for agricultural purposes. The Project area contains Cameron Creek which is substantially surrounded by agriculture uses with the exception of single-family residences scattered in the vicinity. In addition, there are two schools within a one-mile radius of the Project area. Blue Oak Academy, a public charter school in Tulare County is located approximately
0.5 miles southeast and Annie R Mitchell Elementary, located in Visalia’s city limits, is located approx. 0.9 miles northwest. The major intersections surrounding the proposed Project are W. Caldwell and S. Lovers Lane (southern terminus of proposed Project), W. Walnut Ave (Ave 288) and S. Road 148, and Road 156 (northern terminus of proposed Project). W. Caldwell, S. Lovers Lane, W. Walnut Ave (Ave 288), Road 148, and Road 156 are designated Arterial roadways by the City of Visalia. The San Joaquin Valley Railroad, which sees approximately two trains per day, maintains a rail line that bisects the Project area. The Project area is within proximity of two railroad crossings and is not located in a Federal Railroad Administration Quiet Zone.
27 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed Project would create a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the proposed Project in excess of the standards established in the 27 (California Public Utilities Commission 2024)
199
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-59
local general plan, noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies for approximately 90-120 days. The construction required for the completion of this proposed Project would temporarily increase noise levels above what is allowed by the City’s Noise Ordinance; however, construction related activities are allowed between 6 am – 7 pm during the week and between 9 am – 7 pm on the weekends.
Construction-related noise would be temporary and would cease upon completion of the proposed Project. The Project area currently has varying levels of noise due to historical agricultural equipment use and daily train noise. In addition, according to the inverse square law, noise diminishes from its source by six A-weighed decibels with each doubling of distance from origin. As a result, any noise generated from the Project area would have a diminished effect when heard from people in the surrounding area.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project result in generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. Construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. Construction and agricultural activities can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures, and soil type. The generation of vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels from construction would be temporary in nature. In addition, vibration levels subside with increased distance from the source, diminishing the effect the proposed Project would have. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The proposed Project is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip or within an airport land use plan. The nearest airport or airstrip to the Project area is the Visalia Municipal Airport, located approximately seven miles northwest. Therefore, there would be no impact. 200
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-60
4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Table 4-21: Population and Housing Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
Sample, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Baseline Conditions
The proposed Project is located in Tulare County just outside of the southeastern quadrant of the City of Visalia. The proposed Project would be located within Cameron Creek channel which contains water intermittently. Lands surrounding Cameron Creek are planned and zoned for agricultural purposes.
According to the United States Census Bureau, as of July 2023, the City of Visalia has an estimated population of 144,998, while Tulare County, which includes the City of Visalia, is estimated at 479,468.28 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for Sample, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project’s primary purpose is to increase water resources in the region that are increasingly being lost to over pumping of groundwater. The proposed Project would not induce substantial unplanned growth in an area directly or indirectly as it intends to assist in bringing the basin to a net balance of pumping and extracting. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. Implementation of the proposed Project would not make any changes to residential zones.
The proposed Project would utilize laydown areas outside the creek channel for construction equipment; however, these laydown areas would not encroach any existing residential areas. The proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of 28 (United States Census Bureau 2023); (United States Census Bureau 2023) 201
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-61
replacement elsewhere. No residences exist onsite, nor would any in the vicinity be demolished to facilitate the proposed Project. Therefore, there would be no impact. 202
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-62
4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Table 4-22: Public Services
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Baseline Conditions
Fire Protection: The Project area is served by the Tulare County Fire Department (TCFD). The closest TCFD station is located at 25456 Road 140, approximately 3.2 miles south.
Police Protection: Police protection is provided by the Tulare County Sheriff’s Office (TCFO). The closest TCFO station is located 5.3 miles northwest at 833 S. Akers Street.
Schools: The nearest school is Annie R. Mitchell Elementary, located approximately 0.9 miles northwest of the proposed Project.
Parks: The nearest park is Cherry Meadow Park, located approximately 0.75 miles northwest of the Project.
Other Public Facilities: The nearest landfill to the Project area is the Resource Management Agency-Visalia Landfill, located approximately nine miles to the northwest.
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire Protection:
ii. Police Protection:
203
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-63
iii. Schools:
iv. Parks:
v. Other public facilities:
a-i – a-iv) No Impact. The proposed Project would not require new or altered governmental facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for public services. There would be no impact to public services.
204
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-64
4.16 RECREATION
Table 4-23: Recreation Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
Baseline Conditions
Visalia classifies parks and public open space into five general categories. Facilities at each park type vary according to size. Most neighborhood parks have picnic tables, play equipment, and drinking fountains.
Community and regional parks have these amenities as well as a combination of sports fields/courts, barbecue areas, parking, restrooms and facilities for other types of recreation. Parks are classified as follows:
• Pocket Park: A park typically between one-half acre and two acres in size intended to serve the needs of a specific neighborhood within a half-mile radius. • Neighborhood Park: A park typically two to five acres in size that provides basic recreation activities for one or more neighborhoods. The service area ranges from a half-mile to a one-mile radius.
These parks may include facilities such as children’s playgrounds, picnic tables, benches, and walkways. Many neighborhood parks are planned adjacent to new schools, and actual neighborhood park sizes may be as large as 10 acres depending on neighborhood size and need. • Community Park: A park typically ranging from 5 to 12 acres in size or larger, depending on the needs of the quadrant. Community parks are intended to serve the recreational needs of a larger area of the city, and particularly those residents living or working within a two-mile radius. These parks may include facilities such as sport fields, exercise courses, recreation buildings, and restrooms. Other facilities may include community centers, swimming pools, tennis courts, and concession stands.
• Large City Park: A park generally larger than 40 acres in size intended to serve the recreational needs of all city residents and to create opportunities for contact with the natural environment.
These parks may include a concentration of sports fields, golf courses, and areas for picnicking and passive enjoyment of open space.
• Natural Corridors and Greenways: A network of greenways of varying size intended to serve the recreational needs of city residents. These parks may include facilities such as bikeways, walkways, and riding trails, and are primarily developed along the city’s waterways. 205
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-65
Currently, Visalia has 37 parks dispersed throughout the City. Four community parks (Fairview Village Park, Recreation Park, Seven Oaks Park, and Whitendale Park) provide a fuller range of community amenities or are co-located with community centers and range from approximately 9 to 14 acres. Three larger facilities, Mooney’s Grove Park (County), Plaza Park and Riverway Sports Park, are located at the periphery. The St.
John’s Trail (St. John’s Riverway) forms much of the northern edge of the City. Altogether, there are 678 acres of parkland within the City. Tulare County’s Cutler Park provides another 50 acres just outside of the City; this acreage is not counted as park acreage for the City of Visalia.
The closest parks to the Project area are Cherry Meadow Park and Kiwanis Park, located approximately 0.75 miles and one mile away, respectively.
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not increase the demand for recreational facilities, nor would it impose a strain on the existing recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of existing recreational facilities would occur or be accelerated. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project does not propose or intend to include recreational facilities. Therefore, there would be no impact.
206
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-66
4.17 TRANSPORTATION
Table 4-24: Transportation Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)??
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Baseline Conditions
The Project area is located in Tulare County near the southeast quadrant of the City of Visalia. The major intersections surrounding the proposed Project are W. Caldwell and S. Lovers Lane (southern terminus of proposed Project), W. Walnut Ave (Ave 288) and S. Road 148, and Road 156 (northern terminus of proposed Project). W. Caldwell, S. Lovers Lane, W. Walnut Ave (Ave 288), Road 148, and Road 156 are designated Arterial roadways by the City of Visalia.
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project conflict with a plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed Project would temporarily generate increases in vehicle trips by workers and vehicles on adjacent roadways. There could be a minimal increase in truck trips for construction; however, given the scale of the proposed Project and the length of the construction period, the capacity of local roads used to access the Project area would not likely be substantially reduced. Proposed Project operation and maintenance would require regular inspection to assess flow control structure integrity and would result in a minor increase in vehicle trips. Considering the minor increase in traffic, the proposed Project would not worsen any existing levels of service. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 subdivision (b)? Less than Significant Impact. Section 15064.3 of the State CEQA Guidelines establishes specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. The State CEQA Guidelines identify vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which is defined as the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project, as the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of a project on transit and nonmotorized travel. Construction of 207
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-67
the proposed Project would last approximately four months and would use existing construction crews.
Operation of the proposed Project would not add a substantial amount of VMT to the Project area.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. The proposed Project would not increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use. The proposed Project would not make any changes to the City or County’s circulation system. There would be no impact.
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access as no changes would be made to the existing roadway. All work would be done with the channel of Cameron Creek. Project construction would only require minor construction equipment and would be stored on site adjacent to the proposed construction areas. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 208
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-68
4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Table 4-25: Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code section
21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of
the landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in the local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
ii. A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe.
Baseline Conditions
Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, et seq. (codification of AB 52, 2013-14) Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, et seq. (codification of AB 52, 2013-14) requires that a lead agency, within 14 days of determining that it would undertake a project, must notify in writing any California Native American Tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project if that Tribe has previously requested notification about projects in that geographic area. The notice must briefly describe the project and inquire whether the Tribe wishes to initiate request formal consultation. Tribes have 30 days from receipt of notification to request formal consultation. The lead agency then has 30 days to initiate the consultation, which then continues until the parties come to an agreement regarding necessary mitigation or agree that no mitigation is needed, or one or both parties determine that negotiation occurred in good faith, but no agreement would be made.
While the City has received one letter from the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 (AB 52), as a best practice, the City of Visalia notifies all Native American tribes listed in the NAHC 209
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-69
provided list. On June 13, 2024, the City of Visalia sent outreach letters by certified mail to the following thirteen tribal representatives representing eight tribes, informing each of the proposed Project.
1. Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians, Elizabeth D. Kipp, Chairperson
2. Dunlap Band of Mono Indians, Benjamin Charley Jr., Tribal Chair
3. Dunlap Band of Mono Indians, Dirk Charley, Tribal Secretary
4. Kern Valley Indian Community, Julie Turner, Secretary
5. Kern Valley Indian Community, Brandy Kendricks
6. Kern Valley Indian Community, Robert Robinson, Chairperson
7. North Fork Mono Tribe, Ron Goode, Chairperson
8. Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe, Leo Sisco, Chairperson
9. Tubatulabals of Kern County, Robert Gomez, Chairperson
10. Tule River Indian Tribe, Neil Peyron, Chairperson
11. Tule River Indian Tribe, Kerri Vera, Environmental
12. Tule River Indian Tribe, Joey Garfield, Tribal Archaeologist
13. Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band, Kenneth Woodrow Records Search
A records search from the SSJVIC of the CHRIS, located at California State University, Bakersfield was conducted in June 2024. The SSJVIC records search includes a review of all recorded archaeological and built-environment resources as well as a review of cultural resource reports on file. In addition, the California Points of Historical Interest, the California Historical Landmarks, the California Register of Historical Resources, the National Register of Historic Places, and the California State Built Environment Resources Directory listings were reviewed for the above referenced Project area and an additional 0.5- mile radius. Due to the sensitive nature of cultural resources, archaeological site locations are not released. (Appendix C).
Additional sources included the State Office of Historic Preservation Historic Properties Directory, Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, and the California Inventory of Historic Resources.
Impact Assessment
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in the local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. A record search of the NAHC Sacred Lands File was completed for the Project area and the results were negative for the presence of Native American tribal cultural resources. A CHRIS records search from the SSJVIC confirmed that there are four recorded resources within the Project area and 12 within one-half mile radius of the Project area; however, these resources are not considered tribal cultural resources. Although unlikely, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2, described above in Section 4.5.3 are recommended in the event tribal cultural materials or human remains are unearthed during excavation or construction. 210
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-70
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Less than Significant Impact. The City of Visalia, as the public lead agency, received a letter from the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe pursuant to AB 52 officially requesting notification of projects within the Santa Rosa Rancheria’s geographic area of traditional and cultural affiliation. On June 13, 2024, the City sent the tribes listed above a formal letter including a project description and a map of the Project APE. In accordance with the law, the letter provided 30 days from receipt of the letter to request consultation in writing. No response was received.
Although there is little chance the proposed Project would cause a substantial adverse change to the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and CUL-2, described in Section 4.5.3 are recommended in the event cultural materials or human remains are unearthed during excavation or construction.
Mitigation
See CUL-1 and CUL-2 in Section 4.5.3.
211
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-71
4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Table 4-26: Utilities and Service Systems Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Baseline Conditions
The Project area is located in Tulare County near the southeast quadrant of the City of Visalia.
Wastewater
Wastewater generated in Tulare County is either operated and maintained privately via septic systems or through a special district that operates a sanitary sewer system.
The City of Visalia’s existing sanitary sewer system consists of over 468 miles of gravity-flow sanitary sewer pipe ranging in size from four to 48 inches, with 12 Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition-connected lift stations. The system currently serves most developed areas of the city limits. The Visalia Department of Public Works develops and maintains the sewer systems. The City of Visalia typically utilizes a wastewater generation factor of 100 to 125 gallons per day per capita.
Solid Waste
Solid waste in the Project area is managed by the Tulare County Solid Waste Department. 212
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-72
Solid waste disposal is provided to the City by the Tulare County Resource Management Agency (RMA), which operates the Visalia Landfill approximately 5.4 miles northwest of the proposed Project. The facility is located at 8614 Avenue 328 in Visalia and serves the cities of Visalia, Farmersville, Dinuba, Exeter, Tulare, Woodlake, Fresno, and unincorporated areas of northern Tulare and southern Fresno Counties. The approximate amount of waste disposed at Visalia in 2003 was estimated to be 120,000 tons.29 This landfill has a maximum permitted throughput of 2,000 tons per day, a maximum permitted capacity of 18,630,666 cubic yards, and a remaining capacity of 16,145,591 cubic yards. The Visalia Landfill is expected to cease operation in January of 2024.30 Solid waste collection is provided by the City and recyclable material processing is provided to the City by Sunset Waste Systems.
Electricity
Power is provided to the City by SCE. SCE is a subsidiary of Edison International and provides electricity to over 15 million Californians. It is one of the largest electric utilities in the nation, and the nation’s single largest purchaser of renewable power. The electrical facilities network includes both overhead and underground lines, with new development required to install underground service lines.
Natural Gas
Natural gas service in the City is provided by SoCalGas.
Communications
There are three major companies that provide communications services in Visalia: AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon. Comcast is the primary cable television and internet provider.
Water Service Company
Residents located within the unincorporated area of Tulare County either rely on private wells or special districts for water service. The California Water Service Company Visalia district is the primary water purveyor in the City of Visalia.
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. Construction of three check structures in Cameron Creek to improve recharge capabilities flow control structure would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded services.
There would be no impact.
b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? No Impact. There is no anticipated increase in water demand resulting from implementation of the proposed Project. The proposed Project would improve groundwater supplies by decreasing Cameron 29 (ESA 2010)
30 (Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners 2014)
213
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-73
Creek’s flow rate, allowing more water to infiltrate the channel floor to recharge the underlying aquifer.
There would be no impact.
c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
No Impact. No wastewater would be generated as part of the proposed Project. There would be no change to nearby wastewater facilities or operations. There would be no impact. d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? No Impact. Construction associated with the proposed Project could generate minor solid waste, but the amount generated would be negligible. Construction and operation would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Impacts would be less than significant. e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact. The proposed Project would conform to all applicable statutes and regulations related to solid waste disposal. The proposed Project would comply with the adopted policies related to solid waste, and would comply with all applicable federal, State, and local statutes and regulations pertaining to disposal of solid waste, including recycling. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on solid waste regulations.
214
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-74
4.20 WILDFIRE
Table 4-27: Wildfire Impacts
If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands classified
as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrollable spread of wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
Baseline Conditions
The Project area covers a portion of Cameron Creek from Lovers Lane and Caldwell Avenue to an area located near Walnut Avenue and Road 156 in Tulare County. Lands surrounding Cameron Creek predominantly includes agricultural land. Various residences are also scattered in the vicinity, along with a Southern California Edison substation. The Project area is located within the jurisdiction of Tulare County and receives fire protection services from the TCFD. As mentioned in Section 4.15, the closest TCFD station to the proposed Project is located at 25456 Road 140, approximately 3.2 miles south.
According to California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire), the proposed Project is not located within an SRA, meaning CalFire does not assume responsibility for wildfire prevention and protection but is managed at the local level.31 Furthermore, according to CalFire, the Project area is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone, nor is the proposed Project located within a high or moderate fire hazard severity zone.32
31 (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2022) 32 (ArcGIS 2023)
215
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-75
Impact Analysis
a) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? a-d) No Impact. The Project area is located in a section of Tulare County that has not been designated as either a very high fire hazard severity zone or an SRA. The proposed Project is a linear recharge project for groundwater recharge in the area. If there was a fire in the Project area, water from the Project could be used to fight fire. Therefore, further analysis is not required and there would be no impact. 216
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-76
4.21 CEQA MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Table 4-28: CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance
Does the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have the potential to substantially degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Statement of Findings
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigated Incorporated. The analysis conducted in this IS/MND results in a determination that the proposed Project, with incorporation of mitigation measures, will have a less than significant effect on the environment. The potential for impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, and tribal cultural resources from the implementation of the proposed Project will be less than significant with the incorporation of the mitigation measures discussed in this analysis. Accordingly, the proposed Project would involve no potential for significant impacts through the degradation of the quality of the environment, the reduction in the habitat or population of fish or wildlife, including endangered plants or animals, the elimination of a plant or animal community or example of a major period of California history or prehistory.
217
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-77
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i) States that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a project is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects. As discussed above, the Project would result in less than significant impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, and tribal cultural resources with mitigation incorporated.
Project operations would not require any on-site personnel. Maintenance would be performed on an asneeded basis and would not require any permanent on-site personnel. As such, the Project operations would generate minimal Project-related vehicle trips as a result of implementation. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts and all potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant through the implementation of mitigation measures and basic regulatory requirements incorporated into proposed Project design. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impact. The analysis conducted in this IS/MND results in a determination that the proposed Project would have a less than a substantial adverse effect on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
218
Chapter 5: Mitigation, Monitoring, & Reporting Program
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 5-1
CHAPTER 5 MITIGATION,
MONITORING, AND REPORTING
PROGRAM
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been formulated based upon the findings of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project in the County of Tulare. The MMRP lists mitigation measures recommended in the IS/MND for the proposed Project and identifies monitoring and reporting requirements.
Table 5-1: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program presents the mitigation measures identified for the proposed Project. Each mitigation measure is numbered with a symbol indicating the topical section to which it pertains, a hyphen, and the impact number. For example, AIR-2 would be the second mitigation measure identified in the Air Quality analysis of the IS/MND.
The first column of Table 5-1: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program identifies the mitigation measure. The second column, entitled “When Monitoring is to Occur,” identifies the time the mitigation measure should be initiated. The third column, “Frequency of Monitoring,” identifies the frequency of the monitoring of the mitigation measure. The fourth column, “Agency Responsible for Monitoring,” names the party ultimately responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented. The last columns will be used by the Lead and Responsible Agencies to ensure that individual mitigation measures have been complied with and monitored.
219
Chapter 5: Mitigation, Monitoring, & Reporting Program
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 5-2
Table 5-1: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Item Mitigation Measure When Monitoring
is to Occur
Frequency
of
Monitoring
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification
of
Compliance
Biological Resources
General Project-Related Impacts
BIO-1 (WEAP Training): Prior to initiating construction activities (including staging and mobilization), all personnel associated with project construction will attend a mandatory Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training,
conducted by a “qualified biologist” (someone who is familiar with the species on the document), to aid workers in
identifying special status resources that may occur in the APE.
The specifics of this program will include identification of the sensitive species and suitable habitats, a description of the regulatory status and general ecological characteristics of sensitive resources, and review of the limits of construction and mitigation measures required to reduce impacts to
biological resources within the work area. This training will discuss special status species, describe the laws and
regulations in place to provide protection of these species, identify the penalties for violation of applicable environmental laws and regulations, and include a list of required protective measures to avoid “take.” A fact sheet summarizing this information, along with photographs or illustrations of sensitive species with potential to occur on the APE, will also be prepared for distribution to all contractors, their employees, and all other personnel involved with construction of the project. All trainees will sign a form documenting that they have attended WEAP training and understand the information presented to them
Prior to the start of
any construction
activities
As needed for
any new
construction
personnel
during
construction
activities
City of Visalia
BIO-2 (BMPs): The project proponent will require that all workers employ the following best management practices (BMPs) in order to avoid and minimize potential impacts to special status species:
• Vehicles will observe a 15-mph speed limit while on
unpaved access routes.
• Workers will inspect areas beneath parked vehicles,
equipment, and materials prior to mobilization. If
Prior to the start of
any construction
activities
During
Construction
activities
City of Visalia
220
Chapter 5: Mitigation, Monitoring, & Reporting Program
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 5-3
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Item Mitigation Measure When Monitoring
is to Occur
Frequency
of
Monitoring
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification
of
Compliance
special status species are detected, the individual will either be allowed to leave of its own volition or will
be captured by the “qualified biologist” (must
possess appropriate collecting/handling permits)
and relocated out of harm’s way to the nearest
suitable habitat beyond the influence of the project
work area. “Take” of a state or federal special status
(rare, California Species of Special Concern,
threatened, or endangered) species is prohibited.
• The presence of any special status species will be
reported to the project’s “qualified biologist”, who
will submit the occurrence to the CNDDB. If
necessary, the biologist will report the occurrence to
CDFW and/or USFWS
Project-Related Mortality and/or Nest Abandonment of Migratory Birds, Raptors, and Special Status Birds BIO-3 (Avoidance): The project’s construction activities will occur, if feasible, between September 16 and January 31 (outside of the nesting bird season) to avoid impacts to nesting birds.
September 16 to
January 31 Once City of Visalia
BIO-4 (Pre-construction Surveys): If activities must occur within nesting bird season (February 1 to September 15), a “qualified biologist”(someone who is familiar with bird identification and nesting bird surveys) will conduct a pre-construction survey for Swainson’s hawk nests onsite and within a 0.5-mile radius within 5 calendar days prior to the start of construction. This survey will be conducted in accordance with the
Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson's Hawk
Nesting Surveys in California's Central Valley (Swainson's Hawk Technical Advisory Committee 2000), or current guidance. The Swainson’s hawk survey will not be completed between April 21 to June 10 due to the difficulty of identifying nests during this time of year. The survey would also include inspecting for nesting migratory birds within the APE and up to 50 feet outside of the APE, and for other nesting raptors within and up to 450 feet outside of the APE. All raptor nests would be considered “active” upon the nest-building stage. If no active nests are observed, no further mitigation is required.
Prior to
construction
activities
Once, as
determined
by qualified
biologist prior
to
construction
activities
City of Visalia
221
Chapter 5: Mitigation, Monitoring, & Reporting Program
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 5-4
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Item Mitigation Measure When Monitoring
is to Occur
Frequency
of
Monitoring
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification
of
Compliance
BIO-5 (Avoidance Buffers): On discovery of any active nests or breeding colonies near work areas, a “qualified biologist” will determine appropriate avoidance buffer distances based on applicable CDFW and/or USFWS guidelines, the biology of the species, conditions of the nest(s), and the level of project disturbance. If necessary, avoidance buffers will be identified with flagging, fencing, or other easily visible means, and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the
nestlings have fledged.
On discovery of any
active nests or
breeding colonies
near work areas
Once, as
determined
by qualified
biologist prior
to
construction
activities
City of Visalia
BIO-6 (Consultation with CDFW): In the event an active Swainson’s hawk nest is detected within or adjacent to the APE and an appropriate avoidance buffer cannot be implemented, CDFW will be consulted to determine how to protect the nest so the Project may proceed.
On discovery of
active Swainson’s
hawk nests are
detected
Once, as
determined
by qualified
biologist prior
to
construction
activities
City of Visalia
Project-Related Mortality and/or Disturbance to Burrowing Owl BIO-67 (Pre-construction Take Avoidance Survey): A “qualified biologist” (someone who is familiar with species identification and their sign, and habitat use) will conduct a pre-construction take avoidance survey for BUOW and suitable burrows, in accordance with CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
Mitigation (2012), within seven (7) days prior to the start of construction activities. The survey shall include the proposed work area and surrounding lands up to 500 feet. If no BUOW individuals or active burrows are observed, no further
mitigation is required. If construction is hauled for (7) consecutive days another pre-activity survey shall be
completed.
7 days prior to
construction
Once, as
determined
by qualified
biologist prior
to
construction
activities
City of Visalia
BIO-78 (Avoidance): If an active BUOW burrow is detected, the occurrence will be reported to the California Natural Diversity Database, and avoidance buffers shall be implemented. A “qualified biologist” will determine appropriate avoidance buffer distances based on applicable CDFW and/or USFWS
guidelines, the biology of the species, conditions of the burrow(s), and the level of project disturbance. If necessary, avoidance buffers will be identified with flagging, fencing, or Upon discovery of
BUOW burrow
Once, as
determined
by qualified
biologist
during
construction
activities
City of Visalia
222
Chapter 5: Mitigation, Monitoring, & Reporting Program
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 5-5
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Item Mitigation Measure When Monitoring
is to Occur
Frequency
of
Monitoring
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification
of
Compliance
other easily visible means, and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the nestlings have fledged and all BUOW have left the Project area.
BIO-89 (Passive Relocation): If an active BUOW burrow is detected within the proposed work area and cannot be avoided, it is recommended the Project obtain an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) in order to implement a passive reloca-tion plan. Passive relocation will occur during the non-breeding season
(September 1 through January 31) or during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31) if a “qualified biologist” determines that there are no young in the burrow. A “qualified biologist” will prepare the passive relocation plan that would detail the methods to be used. It would include the tools to exclude the BUOW from its burrow (i.e., one-way doors or other devices) and excavate the burrow (hand tools and
machinery, if needed)If avoidance of an active BUOW burrow is not feasible, passive relocation during the non-breeding season (September 1 through January 31) could be utilized or during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31) if a “qualified biologist” determines that there are no young in the burrow. Prior to completion a “qualified biologist” will prepare a passive relocation plan that would detail the methods to be used. It would include the tools to exclude the BUOW from its burrow (i.e., one-way doors or other devices) and excavate the burrow (hand tools and machinery, if needed). Following completion of passive relocation, a report will be prepared that would document the methods and results of these efforts.
September 1 to
January 31
or
February 1 to
August 31
Once, as
determined
by qualified
biologist
during
construction
activities
City of Visalia
Project-Related Mortality and/or Disturbance of Maternity Roosting Bats and Special Status Bats BIO910(Focused Surveys): Within seven days prior to the start of construction activities focused surveys will be conducted by a “qualified biologist” (someone who is familiar with the roosting behavior and habitat of the species and can identify the species sign). They will include a daytime roost survey and dusk emergence survey. The daytime roost survey will include surveying for roosting bats within potentially suitable structures (i.e., oak trees and bridges) within and adjacent to each APE, where accessible.
Within seven days
prior to the start of
construction
activities
Once, as
determined
by qualified
biologist
during
construction
activities
City of Visalia
223
Chapter 5: Mitigation, Monitoring, & Reporting Program
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 5-6
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Item Mitigation Measure When Monitoring
is to Occur
Frequency
of
Monitoring
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification
of
Compliance
The dusk emergence survey will include surveying for emerging bats at areas where bat sign or likely bat roost areas were observed during the daytime roost survey. It should be
conducted on a warm night during dry weather conditions and from approximately 15 minutes before sunset to 1 hour after sunset. If no roosting bats are discovered tree or branch removal must be completed within two days.
BIO1011(Avoidance Buffers): Should any active bat roosts be observed during the focused surveys, a “qualified biologist” will determine appropriate avoidance buffers (i.e., construction setback distances) based on the biology of the species, conditions of the roost(s), and the level of project disturbance, if appropriate. If necessary, avoidance buffers will be identified with flagging, fencing, or other easily visible means, and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the roost will no longer be impacted by construction.
Upon discovery of
any active maternity
roosts
Once, as
determined
by qualified
biologist
during
construction
activities
City of Visalia
BIO1112(Eviction): If avoidance buffers are not feasible and it has been determined by a “qualified biologist” that the bats are no longer raising their young or are overwintering, the bats may be evicted. An eviction plan will first be prepared by a “qualified biologist” that identifies the materials and methods that will be used to safely evict the bats.
During construction
activities
Once, as
determined
by qualified
biologist
during
construction
activities
City of Visalia
Project-Related Mortality and/or Disturbance to San Joaquin Kit Fox BIO1213(Pre-Construction Survey): Within fourteen (14) days prior to the start of construction a “qualified biologist” will conduct a pre-construction survey for San Joaquin kit fox will be conducted on and within 200 feet of proposed work areas.
Within fourteen
(14) days prior to
the start of
construction
Once, as
determined
by qualified
biologist
during
construction
activities
City of Visalia
BIO1314(Establish Buffers): On discovery of any SJKF dens near the project area a “qualified biologist” (someone familiar with the identification and sign of this species) will determine appropriate construction setback distances (buffer zones) based on applicable CDFW and/or USFWS guidelines (see
Upon discovery of
any SJKF dens
Once, as
determined
by qualified
biologist
during
City of Visalia
224
Chapter 5: Mitigation, Monitoring, & Reporting Program
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 5-7
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Item Mitigation Measure When Monitoring
is to Occur
Frequency
of
Monitoring
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification
of
Compliance
below). If needed, construction buffers will be identified with flagging, fencing, or other easily visible means. They will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the den will no longer be impacted by construction.
1. At least 100 feet around den(s);
2. At least 200 feet around natal dens (which SJKF
young are reared); and
3. At least 500 feet around any natal dens with pups
(except for any portions of the buffer zone that is
already fully developed.
construction
activities
BIO1415(Avoidance and Minimization): The project will observe all avoidance and minimization measures during construction and on-going operational activities as required by the “qualified biologist” and the USFWS’s Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011), including, but not limited to:
maintaining buffer zones, construction speed limits, covering of pipes, installation of escape structures, restriction of herbicide and rodenticide use, proper disposal of food items and trash, prohibition of pets and firearms, and completion of an employee education program (see BIO-1).
During construction
activities and
operation
As
determined
by qualified
biologist
during
construction
activities
City of Visalia
Project-Related Mortality and/or Disturbance to American Badger BIO1516(Pre-construction Take Avoidance Survey): A “qualified biologist” (someone familiar with the identification and sign of this species) will conduct a pre-construction survey of project areas within seven (7) days prior to vegetation clearing or ground disturbing activities. The goal of this survey is to search for potential badger dens.
Seven days prior to
vegetation clearing
or ground disturbing
activities
Once, as
determined
by qualified
biologist
during
construction
activities
City of Visalia
BIO1617(Remote Cameras): If potential dens for American badger are detected during the pre-construction survey, each potential den will be monitored with remote cameras for a period of three consecutive nights. If there is no activity at the den location recorded for three consecutive nights, the den can be deemed “inactive” or “unoccupied” and closed or excavated.
Upon discovery of
potential American
Badger dens
Once, as
determined
by qualified
biologist
during
construction
activities
City of Visalia
225
Chapter 5: Mitigation, Monitoring, & Reporting Program
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 5-8
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Item Mitigation Measure When Monitoring
is to Occur
Frequency
of
Monitoring
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification
of
Compliance
BIO1718(Den Avoidance): If an American badger is denning on or within 50 feet of the project site, the project proponent shall avoid the den by a minimum 50-foot buffer. Upon discovery of
denning
Once, as
determined
by qualified
biologist
during
construction
activities
City of Visalia
BIO1819(Eviction and Den Excavation): If an American badger is denning on or within 50 feet of the project site and it cannot be avoided, the badger may be evicted, and the den excavated outside of the natal season (generally March 15 – June 15) or if it is determined that there are no kits in the den. Prior to the planned eviction and den excavation, a remote camera will be placed at the den entrance for a minimum of three consecutive nights to record the general time when the badger leaves the den. If it is outside of the natal season or it is determined by a “qualified biologist” that there are no “kits” present in the den the badger will be evicted from the den and the den excavated by hand, with the assistance of machinery, after it has left the den for that night. Should any “kits” be discovered during the excavation the work will stop and the crew will leave the site immediately so the female can rescue her kits and relocate them.
March 15 to June 15
Once, as
determined
by qualified
biologist
during
construction
activities
City of Visalia
Cultural Resources
CUL-1 In the event that previously unidentified archaeological remains are encountered during development or groundmoving activities in the APE, 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-moving activities in the APE, all work shall be halted in the immediate vicinity until a qualified archaeologist can identify the discovery and assess its significance.
During construction
activities Continuously City of Visalia
CUL-2 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, Upon discovery of
human remains Continuously Applicant/Contractor
226
Chapter 5: Mitigation, Monitoring, & Reporting Program
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 5-9
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Item Mitigation Measure When Monitoring
is to Occur
Frequency
of
Monitoring
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification
of
Compliance
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.
Tribal Cultural Resources
See CUL-1 and CUL-2 above.
227
Chapter 6: References
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 6-1
CHAPTER 6 REFERENCES
ArcGIS. 2023. Is Your Home in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone? https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Styler/index.html?appid=5e96315793d445419b6c96f89ce5d153.
California Department of Conservation. 2002. "California Geomorphic Provinces Note 36." https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/CGS-Notes/CGS-Note-36.pdf. —. 2023. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2022. California State Responsibility Areas. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=5ac1dae3cb2544629a845d9a19e83 991.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2022. California Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.
California Department of Water Resources. 2023. California's Groundwater Live: Groundwater Levels. https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/b3886b33b49c4fa8adf2ae8bdd8f16c3. —. 2022. Dam Breach Inundation Map Web Publisher.
https://fmds.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=dam_prototype_v2. —. 2023. GSA Map Viewer. https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/index.jsp?appid=gasmaster&rz=true.
California Department of Water Resources. Natural Resources Agency. 2015. "California’s Groundwater Update 2013." https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/GroundwaterManagement/Data-and-Tools/Files/Statewide-Reports/California-Groundwater-Update2013/California-Groundwater-Update-2013---Chapter-9---Tulare-Lake.pdf.
California Public Utilities Commission. 2024. Quiet Zone. Accessed July 2024. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/rail-safety/rail-crossings-and-engineering/quietzone.
CIty of Visalia, Dyett & Bhatia, Urban and Regional Planners, ICF International, Provost and Pritchard Consulting Group, Omni-Means, Transportation Planners and Engineers. 2014. "City of Visalia General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report." Visalia. https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30497.
Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners. 2014. "Visalia General Plan - Chapter 3: Historic Preservation." Visalia. https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30475.
Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners. 2014. "Visalia General Plan Update. Chapter 2: Land Use." Visalia. https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30474.
Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners. 2014. "Visalia General Plan Update: Parks, Schools, Community Facilities, and Utilities."
https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30477. 228
Chapter 6: References
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 6-2
ESA. 2010. "Tulare County General Plan Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report." http://generalplan.co.tulare.ca.us/documents/GP/002Board%20of%20Supervisors%20Materials/ 001BOS%20Agenda%20Items%20-
%20Public%20Hearing%20August,%2028%202012/002Attachment%20A.%20FEIR/001Exhibit%20
1.%20FEIR%20Exec%20Summary%20&%20Chap%201-6/Recirculated%20.
Greater Kaweah GSA. 2023. About Us. https://greaterkaweahgsa.org/en/about-us.
National Park Service. 2022. Sequoia & Kings Canyon. March 28. https://www.nps.gov/seki/index.htm.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2012. Air Quality Attainment Plans. Accessed August 7, 2024. http://valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/air-quality-plans.htm. —. 2012. Air Quality Attainment Plans. Accessed August 7, 2023. http://valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/airquality-plans.htm.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2009. "Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emissions Impacts for New Projects under CEQA."
State of California. 2022. State Water Resources Control Board Geo Tracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.
Swainson's Hawk Technical Advisory Committee. 2000. "Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson's Hawk Nesting Surveys in California's Central Valley." May. Accessed January 2024.
Tulare County Agricultural Commissioner/Sealer. 2022. "Tulare County Crop and Livestock Report." United States Census Bureau. 2023. "Quick Facts. Visalia City, California." https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/visaliacitycalifornia.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2023. Waters GeoViewer. https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/waters-geoviewer.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2024. Current Nonattainment Counties for All Criteria Pollutants. Accessed August 7, 2024. https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html.
University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources. 2022. Tulare County Cooperative Extension. https://cetulare.ucanr.edu/.
n.d. "Weatherspark." Climate and Average Weather Year Round in Visalia. Accessed 06 14, 2024. https://weatherspark.com/y/1510/Average-Weather-in-Visalia-California-United-States-YearRound. 229
Appendices
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 A-1
Appendix A: CalEEMod Output Files
230
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
1 / 39
Cameron Creek Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated
3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
231
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
2 / 39
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
232
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
3 / 39
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
233
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
4 / 39
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
234
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
5 / 39
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
235
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
6 / 39
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
236
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
7 / 39
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Cameron Creek
Construction Start Date 4/7/2025
Operational Year 2025
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 1.90
Precipitation (days) 24.4
Location 36.30774986435178, -119.2445160879941
County Tulare
City Unincorporated
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2779
EDFZ 9
Electric Utility Eastside Power Authority
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.26
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
7.50 1000sqft 0.17 0.00 — — — —
237
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
8 / 39
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.34 1.13 10.1 10.4 0.02 0.46 5.35 5.82 0.43 2.58 3.00 — 1,759 1,759 0.07 0.02 0.23 1,766 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.15 0.13 1.23 1.64 < 0.005 0.05 0.04 0.09 0.05 0.02 0.06 — 302 302 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 303 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.03 0.02 0.22 0.30 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 — 50.1 50.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 50.2
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.34 1.13 10.1 10.4 0.02 0.46 5.35 5.82 0.43 2.58 3.00 — 1,759 1,759 0.07 0.02 0.23 1,766 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
238
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
9 / 39
2025 0.15 0.13 1.23 1.64 < 0.005 0.05 0.04 0.09 0.05 0.02 0.06 — 302 302 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 303 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.03 0.02 0.22 0.30 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 — 50.1 50.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 50.2
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — — — — 0.00 — Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — — — — 0.00 — Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — — — — 0.00 — Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — — — — 0.00 —
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 239
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
10 / 39
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 NaN NaN NaN NaN — NaN
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NaN NaN NaN NaN 0.00 NaN Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 NaN NaN NaN NaN — NaN
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NaN NaN NaN NaN 0.00 NaN Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 NaN NaN NaN NaN — NaN
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NaN NaN NaN NaN 0.00 NaN Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 NaN NaN NaN NaN — NaN
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NaN NaN NaN NaN 0.00 NaN 240
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
11 / 39
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.56 0.47 4.33 5.65 0.01 0.16 — 0.16 0.14 — 0.14 — 852 852 0.03 0.01 — 855 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.07 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14.0 14.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.1 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
241
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
12 / 39
Off-Roa < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.32 2.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.33 d
Equipm
ent
Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 60.3 60.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.23 61.4 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.91 0.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.93 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.15 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
242
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
13 / 39
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.56 0.47 4.16 5.57 0.01 0.21 — 0.21 0.20 — 0.20 — 859 859 0.03 0.01 — 862 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.53 0.53 — 0.06 0.06 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 9.41 9.41 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.45 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.56 1.56 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.56 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — 243
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
14 / 39
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 30.2 30.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 30.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.30 0.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
244
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
15 / 39
Off-Roa 1.29 1.09 10.1 10.0 0.02 0.46 — 0.46 0.43 — 0.43 — 1,714 1,714 0.07 0.01 — 1,720 d
Equipm
ent
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 5.31 5.31 — 2.57 2.57 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 9.39 9.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.42 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.03 0.03 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.55 1.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.56 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
245
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
16 / 39
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 45.3 45.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.17 46.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.23 0.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.23 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.62 0.52 5.14 6.94 0.01 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 — 1,305 1,305 0.05 0.01 — 1,309 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 246
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
17 / 39
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.13 0.11 1.06 1.43 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 268 268 0.01 < 0.005 — 269 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.02 0.02 0.19 0.26 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 44.4 44.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 44.5 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
247
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
18 / 39
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 248
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
19 / 39
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
249
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
20 / 39
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s
< 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
< 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
250
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
21 / 39
Landsca 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 pe
Equipm
Total < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s
< 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
< 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s
< 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
< 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 251
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
22 / 39
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 NaN NaN NaN NaN — NaN
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 NaN NaN NaN NaN — NaN
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 NaN NaN NaN NaN — NaN
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 NaN NaN NaN NaN — NaN
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 NaN NaN NaN NaN — NaN
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 NaN NaN NaN NaN — NaN
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
252
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
23 / 39
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
253
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
24 / 39
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
254
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
25 / 39
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
255
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
26 / 39
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
256
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
27 / 39
Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
d
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
257
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
28 / 39
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 4/7/2025 4/14/2025 5.00 6.00 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 4/15/2025 4/18/2025 5.00 4.00 — Grading Grading 4/19/2025 4/22/2025 5.00 2.00 —
Building Construction Building Construction 4/23/2025 8/5/2025 5.00 75.0 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 1.00 367 0.40 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
258
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
29 / 39
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 10.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 6.80 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 5.00 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 6.80 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 7.50 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 6.80 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 0.00 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 0.00 6.80 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.5. Architectural Coatings
259
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
30 / 39
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Parking Area Coated (sq ft) Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Site Preparation — — 2.00 0.00 —
Grading — — 1.50 0.00 —
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.17 100%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 453 0.03 < 0.005
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
260
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
31 / 39
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 450
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 453 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 NaN
261
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
32 / 39
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
262
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
33 / 39
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 35.8 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 1.10 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
263
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
34 / 39
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 5 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding 0 0 0 N/A
Drought 0 0 0 N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 5 1 1 4
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
264
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
35 / 39
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding 1 1 1 2
Drought 1 1 1 2
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 91.1
AQ-PM 97.8
AQ-DPM 22.5
Drinking Water 69.2
Lead Risk Housing 12.9
Pesticides 79.1
Toxic Releases 68.7
Traffic 19.1
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 15.1 265
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
36 / 39
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 26.7
Impaired Water Bodies 12.5
Solid Waste 59.2
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 41.5
Cardio-vascular 71.3
Low Birth Weights 11.9
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 51.2
Housing 35.3
Linguistic 33.9
Poverty 42.6
Unemployment 14.4
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 50.64801745
Employed 49.30065443
Median HI 36.5199538
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 43.17977672
High school enrollment 15.95021173
Preschool enrollment 41.02399589
Transportation —
Auto Access 64.27563198
Active commuting 12.5882202
266
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
37 / 39
Social—
2-parent households 51.0714744
Voting 61.59373797
Neighborhood—
Alcohol availability 67.48363916
Park access 34.55665341
Retail density 6.813807263
Supermarket access 5.41511613
Tree canopy 44.98909278
Housing—
Homeownership 52.53432568
Housing habitability 58.27024253
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 58.3472347 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 52.59848582
Uncrowded housing 32.9013217
Health Outcomes—
Insured adults 57.69280123
Arthritis 49.4
Asthma ER Admissions 48.9
High Blood Pressure 56.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 36.4
Asthma 46.1
Coronary Heart Disease 61.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 50.7
Diagnosed Diabetes 73.9
Life Expectancy at Birth 52.2
Cognitively Disabled 30.7
Physically Disabled 24.6
267
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
38 / 39
Heart Attack ER Admissions 21.4
Mental Health Not Good 51.7
Chronic Kidney Disease 64.9
Obesity 36.0
Pedestrian Injuries 79.3
Physical Health Not Good 59.3
Stroke 70.4
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 16.3
Current Smoker 57.8
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 62.4
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 45.9
Elderly 61.9
English Speaking 54.3
Foreign-born 18.0
Outdoor Workers 16.9
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity—
Impervious Surface Cover 76.8
Traffic Density 26.4
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices—
Hardship 60.8
Other Decision Support—
2016 Voting 56.1
268
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
39 / 39
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 43.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 41.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Construction schedule of 4 months 269
Construction Equipment Vehicles
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horsepower Load Factor Number of Days Average Daily Factor Gallons Diesel Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6 84 0.37 6 90.72 0.6 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1 367 0.4 6 66.06 0.6
Demolition Concrete/Idustrial Saws 1 8 33 0.73 6 47.52 0.6 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 6 367 0.4 2 132.12 0.6
Grading Graders 1 6 148 0.41 2 53.28 0.6
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7 84 0.37 2 35.28 0.6 Building Construction Cranes 1 4 367 0.29 72 3,170.88 0.6 Building Construction Forklifts 2 6 82 0.2 72 1,062.72 0.6 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 84 0.37 72 1,451.52 0.6 Site Preparation Graders 1 8 148 0.41 4 142.08 0.6
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 84 0.37 4 80.64 0.6 Total 6,332.82
Construction Worker Vehicles
Phase Name Daily Worker Trip Daily Vendor Trip Days per Year Total Worker Trips Total Vendor Trips Worker Trip Length (miles) Vendor Trip Length (miles) Total Worker VMT Total Vendor VMT Average Daily Factor Total Gallons Gasoline Total Gallons Diesel Grading 8 2 - 15 7.7 6.8 - 116 0.6 4.33 -
Building Construction 25 10 72 720 1,800 7.7 6.8 4,896 13,860 0.6 519.11 1,264.06 Demolition 10 6 - 60 7.7 6.8 - 462 0.6 17.30 -
Site Preparation 5 4 - 20 7.7 6.8 - 154 0.6 5.77 -
Total 546.50 1,264.06
270
Appendices
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 B-1
Appendix B: Biological Resources Evaluation
271
CITY OF VISALIA
CAMERON CREEK PROJECT
BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
VISALIA
NOVEMBER 2024
PREPARED FOR:
City of Visalia
Visalia, California
PREPARED BY:
PROVOST & PRITCHARD CONSULTING GROUP
1518 Mill Rock Way #100, Bakersfield, California 93311
272
Report Prepared for:
City of Visalia
707 W. Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
Contact:
Rebecca Keenan
[email protected]
Report Prepared by:
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
Preparer: Jenny McCarthy, Biologist
Project Manager: Briza Sholars, Senior Planner
QA/QC: Mary Beth Bourne, Associate Biologist
Other personnel involved in report preparation: Ben Toews, GIS Specialist, and Jackie Lancaster, Project Administrator
Contact:
Briza Sholars
(866) 776-6200 Ext: 134
COPYRIGHT 2024 BY PROVOST & PRITCHARD CONSULTING GROUP ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group expressly reserves its common law copyright and other applicable property rights to this document. This document is not to be reproduced, changed, or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to a third party without first obtaining the written permission and consent of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group In the event of unauthorized reuse of the information contained herein by a third party, the third party shall hold the firm of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group harmless, and shall bear the cost of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group's legal fees associated with defending and enforcing these rights.
273
City of Visalia November 2024
Biological Evaluation
www.provostandpritchard.com Page iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Project Description...................................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Report Objectives.....................................................................................................................1-1
1.3 Study Methodology ..................................................................................................................1-5 2 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Regional Settings......................................................................................................................2-1
2.1.1 Topography..................................................................................................................2-1
2.1.2 Climate.........................................................................................................................2-1
2.1.3 Hydrology.....................................................................................................................2-1
2.1.4 Soils..............................................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Biotic Habitats..........................................................................................................................2-3
2.2.1 Creek............................................................................................................................2-3
2.2.2 Ruderal.........................................................................................................................2-3
2.3 Natural Communities of Special Concern and Riparian Habitat ...............................................2-7
2.4 Designated Critical Habitat.......................................................................................................2-7
2.5 Wildlife Movement Corridors and Native Wildlife Nursery Sites..............................................2-7
2.6 Special Status Plants and Animals ............................................................................................2-7 3 Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Significance Criteria..................................................................................................................3-1
3.1.1 CEQA............................................................................................................................3-1
3.1.2 NEPA ............................................................................................................................3-1
3.2 Relevant Policies and Goals......................................................................................................3-2
3.2.1 The Tulare County Ordinance ......................................................................................3-2
3.2.2 Threatened and Endangered Species ..........................................................................3-3
3.2.3 Designated Critical Habitat ..........................................................................................3-3
3.2.4 Migratory Birds............................................................................................................3-4
3.2.5 Birds of Prey.................................................................................................................3-4
3.2.6 Nesting Birds................................................................................................................3-4
3.2.7 Wetlands and other “Jurisdictional Waters”................................................................3-4
3.3 Potentially Significant Project-Related Impacts and Mitigation ...............................................3-6
3.3.1 General Project-Related Impacts.................................................................................3-6
3.3.2 Project-Related Mortality and/or Nest Abandonment of Migratory Birds, Raptors, and Special Status Birds..................................................................................................................3-7
3.3.3 Project-Related Mortality and/or Disturbance to Burrowing Owl ...............................3-8
3.3.4 Project-Related Mortality and/or Disturbance of Maternity Roosting Bats and Special Status Bats..............................................................................................................................3-9
3.3.5 Project-Related Mortality and/or Disturbance to San Joaquin Kit Fox.......................3-10
3.3.6 Project-Related Mortality and/or Disturbance to American Badger..........................3-11
3.4 SECTION 7 DETERMINATIONS..........................................................................................3-11
3.5 Less Than Significant Project-Related Impacts.......................................................................3-13
3.5.1 Project-Related Impacts to Special Status Plant Species Absent From, or Unlikely to Occur on the APE.......................................................................................................3-13 274
City of Visalia November 2024
Biological Evaluation
www.provostandpritchard.com Page iv
3.5.2 Project-Related Impacts to Special Status Animal Species Absent From, or Unlikely to Occur on the APE.......................................................................................................3-13
3.5.3 Project-Related Impacts to Riparian Habitat and Natural Communities of Special Concern.....................................................................................................................3-13
3.5.4 Project-Related Impacts to Regulated Waters, Wetlands, and Water Quality...........3-13
3.5.5 Project-Related Impacts to Wildlife Movement Corridors and Native Wildlife Nursery Sites...........................................................................................................................3-13
3.5.6 Project-Related Impacts to Critical Habitat................................................................3-14
3.5.7 Local Policies or Habitat Conservation Plans..............................................................3-14
3.5.8 Project-Related Impact to Essential Fish Habitat.......................................................3-14 4 References ................................................................................................................................... 4-1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Regional Location Map................................................................................................................1-3 Figure 2: Area of Potential Effect ...............................................................................................................1-4 Figure 3: Topographic Quadrangle Map.....................................................................................................2-2 Figure 4: Habitat Map.................................................................................................................................2-4 Figure 5: Habitat Map.................................................................................................................................2-5 Figure 6: Habitat Map.................................................................................................................................2-6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: List of Special Status Plants with Potential to Occur on the APE ..................................................2-8 Table 2: List of Special Status Animals with Potential to Occur on the APE..............................................2-11 Table 3: Section 7 Determinations ...........................................................................................................3-11
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Representative Photos of the APE
Appendix B: CNDDB 11-Quad Species List
Appendix C: IPaC Species List
Appendix D: NRCS Web Soil Survey Report
Appendix E: NMFS EFH Mapper
275
City of Visalia November 2024
Biological Evaluation
www.provostandpritchard.com Page v
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
APE ...........................................................................................................................Area of Potential Effect BMP ................................................................................................................... Best Management Practices BUOW…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Burrowing Owl CDFW............................................................................................California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA .....................................................................................................California Environmental Quality Act CNDDB.................................................................................................. California Natural Diversity Database CNPS................................................................................................................ California Native Plant Society County .......................................................................................................................................Tulare County District...................................................................................................................................................Tulare ECOS..........................United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s Environmental Conservation Online System EPA .......................................................................................................... Environmental Protection Agency °F…….................................................................................................................................degrees Fahrenheit IPaC ................United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s Information for Planning and Consultation system MBTA...................................................................................................................... Migratory Bird Treaty Act NEPA..........................................................................................................National Environmental Policy Act NRCS................................................................................................ Natural Resources Conservation Service Project........................................................................................................................Cameron Creek Project Provost & Pritchard………………………….………………………………………….…..Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group RWQCB................................................................................................Regional Water Quality Control Board SJKF………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..San Joaquin Kit Fox SWPPP............................................................................................... Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB................................................................................................. State Water Resources Control Board USACE................................................................................................ United States Army Corps of Engineers USC ................................................................................................................................. United States Code USDA .............................................................................................. United States Department of Agriculture USFWS................................................................................................United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS............................................................................................................. United States Geological Survey 276
City of Visalia November 1,
2024
Biological Evaluation
Section One: Introduction
www.provostandpritchard.com 1-1
1 INTRODUCTION
This Biological Evaluation, prepared by Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group (Provost & Pritchard) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), includes descriptions of the biological resources present or with potential to occur within the proposed Cameron Creek Project (or “project”) and surrounding areas, potential project-related impacts or effects to those resources, and mitigation measures to reduce these impacts and effects to a less-thansignificant level under CEQA and NEPA.
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The area of potential effect (APE) was located in the San Joaquin Valley, southwest of the City of Visalia and east of the City of Exeter in the northeast corner of Tulare County, California (see Figure 1). The APE includes approximately 8 acres with an additional 25-foot buffer surrounding the project site. It includes dirt roads and a section of Cameron Creek for a total of 14 acres (see Figure 2). Surrounding lands on both sides of Cameron Creek are orchards, a recharge basin, agricultural and scattered residential homes.
The City of Visalia (or “City”) proposes to construct three reinforced concrete check structures within Cameron Creek. The objective of the project is to convert Cameron Creek into a linear recharge facility. This will be accomplished by excavating through the creek channel and embankment at a depth of about 10 feet in the channel top and two to three feet at the channel bottom. Each check structure will be equipped with automatic gates capable of passing high water levels. The sections of Cameron Creek that will be utilized start where the creek diverts from Tulare Irrigation District’s (TID) Main Intake Canal east of Road 156, with the end location northeast of Lovers Lane and Caldwell Avenue intersection.
1.2 REPORT OBJECTIVES
Construction activities such as those proposed by the project could potentially damage biological resources or habitats that are critical for sensitive plant and wildlife species. In cases such as these, development may be regulated by state or federal agencies, and/or addressed by local regulatory agencies.
This report addresses issues related to the following:
• The presence of sensitive biological resources on the APE, or with the potential to occur on the APE.
• The federal, state, and local regulations regarding these resources. • Mitigation measures that may be required to reduce the magnitude of anticipated impacts and/or comply with permit requirements of state and federal resource agencies.
Therefore, the objectives of this report are to:
• Summarize all APE-specific information related to existing biological resources. • Make reasonable inferences about the biological resources that could occur on the APE based on habitat suitability and the proximity of the APE to a species’ known range. • Summarize all state and federal natural resource protection laws that may be relevant to implementation of the project.
• Identify and discuss project impacts and effects to biological resources likely to occur onsite within the context of CEQA, NEPA, and/or state or federal laws. • Identify and prescribe a set of avoidance and minimization measures that would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level (as identified by CEQA) or avoid and minimize effects (as identified 277
City of Visalia November 1,
2024
Biological Evaluation
Section One: Introduction
www.provostandpritchard.com 1-2
by NEPA) and are generally consistent with recommendations of the resource agencies for affected biological resources.
278
?Î
EAð
EA¢
A¹E
Woodville
Farm
Labor Camp
Hypericum
Sultana
Waukena
Tonyville
Yettem
Tooleville
Linnell
Camp
Cutler
East Orosi
Strathmore
Goshen
Orosi
Lemon
Cove
Ivanhoe
London
Poplar-Cotton
Center
East
Porterville
Woodville
Traver
Tipton
Seville
West
Goshen
Delft Colony
Lindcove
East Tulare
Villa
El Rancho
Matheny
Monson
Patterson
Tract
Plainview
Farmersville
Lindsay
Dinuba
Woodlake
Exeter
Tulare
Porterville
Visalia Measurement
Check
Rector
Check
Lovers
Check
F r e s n o C o u n t y
T u l a r e C o u n t y K i n g s C o u n t y T u l a r e C o u n t y Reedley
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS
Area of Potential Effect
TID
Census Place
City Limits (various colors)
County
0 2 4
o Miles
!
6/25/2024 \\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Visalia_City of-1391\139124002-Cameron Creek\400 GIS\Map\CityOfVisalia_Cameron_Creek_Recharge\CityOfVisalia_Cameron_Creek_Recharge.aprx Regional Map
City of Visalia - Cameron Creek Recharge Project Fig. 1 Page 1-2 Tulare Co.
279
Rd 152
E K Rd
Cherry Ave
Visalia Pkwy
Ave 292
McAuliff St
Ave 288
Rd 148
Rd 140
Rd 156
Ave 280
Measurement
Check
Rector Check
Lovers Check
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Proposed Structure Location
Cameron Creek
Area of Potential Effect (8 Acres)
Visalia City Limit
Farmersville City Limit
6/25/2024
o
\\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Visalia_City of-1391\139124002-Cameron Creek\400 GIS\Map\CityOfVisalia_Cameron_Creek_Recharge\CityOfVisalia_Cameron_Creek_Recharge.aprx prepared by: benjamint City of Visalia - Cameron Creek Recharge Project
Area of Potential Effect Map
NAIP 2022 Imagery
Fig. 3 Page 1-4280
City of Visalia November 1,
2024
Biological Evaluation
Section One: Introduction
www.provostandpritchard.com 1-5
1.3 STUDY METHODOLOGY
A reconnaissance-level field survey of the APE was conducted on June 3, 2024, by Provost & Pritchard biologist, Jenny McCarthy. The survey consisted of walking in the APE while identifying and noting land uses, biological habitats and communities, and plant and animal species encountered. Habitats were also assessed to help with determining if they could be suitable for various rare or protected plant and animal species. Representative photographs of the site were taken and are presented in Appendix A.
Ms. McCarthy then utilized the results of the field survey to conduct an analysis of potential project-related impacts to biological resources based on the resources known to occur or with the potential to occur within the APE. Sources of information used in preparation of this analysis included: CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; see Appendix B for the species list) and California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) database; California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California; CalFlora’s online database of California native plants; Jepson Herbarium’s online database (i.e., Jepson eFlora); United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS), Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC; see Appendix C for the species list) system, and National Wetlands Inventory (NWI); iNaturalist; NatureServe Explorer’s online database; United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (see Appendix D for the Web Soil Survey Report); California Herps website; and various manuals, reports, and references related to plants and animals of the San Joaquin Valley region.
The field survey did not include focused surveys for special status species. The field survey conducted included the appropriate level of detail to assess the significance of potential impacts to sensitive biological resources resulting from implementing the project. Furthermore, the field survey was sufficient to generally describe those features of the project that could be subject to the jurisdiction of federal and/or state agencies, such as the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).
281
City of Visalia November 1, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Two: Existing Conditions
www.provostandpritchard.com 2-1
2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1 REGIONAL SETTINGS
2.1.1 TOPOGRAPHY
The APE is located within the southwest corner of Section 03, and the northwest corner of Section 02, Township 19, Range 25 East, and the southeast corner of Section 35 Township 18, Range 25 East Township 19, Range 25 East in the Visalia and Exeter quad. The topography of the APE is relatively flat with elevations ranging from 318 to 352 feet above mean sea level (see Figure 3).
2.1.2 CLIMATE
Like most of California, the APE experiences a Mediterranean climate. Warm, dry summers are followed by cool, moist winters. In the summer, average high temperatures range between 88- and 95 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), but often exceed 95 °F, and the humidity is generally low. Winter temperatures are often below 57 °F during the day and rarely exceed 64 °F. On average, the City of Visalia receives approximately
10.6 inches of precipitation in the form of rain yearly, most of which occurs between October and May (Weatherspark), and the APE would be expected to receive similar amounts of precipitation.
2.1.3 HYDROLOGY
The nearest surface water to the project is Cameron Creek which runs through the APE. Cameron Creek is a controlled waterway that is inundated infrequently. The creek runs southwest of Visalia where it eventually splits and spills into a water basin but also continues a short distance before it merges with Packwood Creek.
2.1.4 SOILS
One soil mapping unit representing one soil type wasidentified within the APE (see Appendix D for the Web Soil Survey Report). The only soil type within the APE is Grangeville and the soil map unit is sandy loam, drained, with 0 to 2 percent slopes. Grangeville soils are somewhat poorly drained, with negligible to very low runoff, and moderately rapid permeability. This soil type is primarily used for wildlife habitat and agriculture.
Hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions such that under sufficiently wet conditions, hydrophytic vegetation can be supported. The interpretive group and one minor soil component were identified as hydric. 282
T18S R25E
T19S R25E
T18S
R26E
T19S
R26E
28 27 26 25 30
36 31
35 33 34
03 02 04
01 06
09 10 11 12 07
VISALIA EXETER
Measurement
Check
Rector Check
Lovers Check
0 750 1,500
Feet
Proposed Turnout
Area of Potential Effect
USGS Topo Maps (1:24k)
Quad Name
Township/Range
Section
o City of Visalia - Cameron Creek Recharge Project
Topographic Quadrangle Map
prepared by: benjamint
Project Elevation is approximately 320 to 360 feet above MSL. 6/25/2024 \\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Visalia_City of-1391\139124002-Cameron Creek\400 GIS\Map\CityOfVisalia_Cameron_Creek_Recharge\CityOfVisalia_Cameron_Creek_Recharge.aprx USGS National Map, Data refreshed April 2023.
Fig. 2 Page 1-3283
City of Visalia November 1, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Two: Existing Conditions
www.provostandpritchard.com 2-3
2.2 BIOTIC HABITATS
Two biotic habitats were observed within the APE and included creek and ruderal (see Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 6). These habitats and their constituent plant and animal species are described in more detail in the following sections.
2.2.1 CREEK
The APE is located within Cameron Creek. The vegetation abundance varied throughout the creek, however the species richness remained consistent. The water level in the creek varied from dry to ponded for no more than a few hundred feet. There was trash and tire marks observed throughout the creek. There were two bridges that overlapped the boundary of the APE. The first bridge was west of the measurement check and the second bridge was north of the rector check.
The survey of the APE resulted in the identification of the following species: tall flatsedge (Cyperus eragrostis), horseweed (Erigeron canadensis), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica), common cocklebur, (Xanthium orientale), seep monkeyflower (Erythranthe guttata), Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), watermelon (Citrullus lanatus), common sunflower (Helianthus annuus), Spanish clover, (Acmispon americanus), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), and prickly pear (Opuntia ficusindica).
The survey of the APE resulted in the identification of the following species or their sign; cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) nests, house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), mourning dove (Zenaida marcoura), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), turkey vulture (Cathates aura), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) scat.
2.2.2 RUDERAL
The majority of the ruderal area was comprised of a dirt road that runs parallel on both sides of Cameron Creek. Soils were generally bare with occasional sparse, non-native vegetation throughout the habitat, and scatted valley oak trees (Quercus lobata).
The survey of the APE resulted in the identification of the following species; California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beechyi) was observed alarm calling, barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), slide-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana) was observed seeking shelter between some rocks along Cameron Creek, red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaincensis), common raven (Corvus corax), brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), California scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica), an American kestrel (Falco sparverius) was dive bombing an American crow (Corvus brachyrhynochos) that was perched in an orchard tree, and a Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) was observed flying over the APE and into a valley oak tree outside the APE.
284
S Rio Vista St
Ave 288 E Walnut Ave Rd 148
Cameron Creek
0 250 500
Feet
Proposed Structure Location
Area of Potential Effect (4 Acres)
Visalia City Limit
Habitats
Creek
Ruderal
6/25/2024
o
\\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Visalia_City of-1391\139124002-Cameron Creek\400 GIS\Map\CityOfVisalia_Cameron_Creek_Recharge\CityOfVisalia_Cameron_Creek_Recharge.aprx prepared by: benjamint City of Visalia - Cameron Creek Recharge Project
Rector Check Habitats Map
NAIP 2022 Imagery
Fig. 4 Page 2-285 4
Ave 292
Rd 156
Cameron Creek
0 250 500
Feet
Proposed Structure Location
Area of Potential Effect (2.4 Acres)
Habitats
Creek
Ruderal
6/25/2024
o
\\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Visalia_City of-1391\139124002-Cameron Creek\400 GIS\Map\CityOfVisalia_Cameron_Creek_Recharge\CityOfVisalia_Cameron_Creek_Recharge.aprx prepared by: benjamint City of Visalia - Cameron Creek Recharge Project
Measurement Check Habitats Map
NAIP 2022 Imagery
Fig. 5 Page 2-5286
S Lovers Ln
E Caldwell Ave
Cameron Creek
0 150 300
Feet
Proposed Structure Location
Area of Potential Effect (1.6 Acres)
Visalia City Limit
Habitats
Creek
Ruderal
6/25/2024
o
\\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Visalia_City of-1391\139124002-Cameron Creek\400 GIS\Map\CityOfVisalia_Cameron_Creek_Recharge\CityOfVisalia_Cameron_Creek_Recharge.aprx prepared by: benjamint City of Visalia - Cameron Creek Recharge Project
Lovers Check Habitats Map
NAIP 2022 Imagery
Fig. 6 Page 2-6287
City of Visalia November 1, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Two: Existing Conditions
www.provostandpritchard.com 2-7
2.3 NATURAL COMMUNITIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN AND RIPARIAN HABITAT Natural communities of special concern are those that are of limited distribution, distinguished by significant biological diversity, or home to special status species. CDFW has classified and mapped all natural communities in California. Just as the special status plant and animal species (see Section 3.6), these natural communities of special concern can be found within the CNDDB. No natural communities of special concern were observed during the field survey.
Riparian habitat is composed of plant communities that occur along the banks, and sometimes over the banks, of most waterways and is an important habitat for numerous wildlife species. CDFW has jurisdiction over most riparian habitats in California. No riparian habitat was observed within or adjacent to the APE during the field survey.
2.4 DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT
The USFWS often designates areas of “critical habitat” when it lists species as threatened or endangered.
Critical habitat is a specific geographic area that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species, which may require special management and protection. According to the IPaC, designated critical habitat is absent from the APE how there are areas of designated critical habitat in the region, including 13 miles east of the APE for California condors (Gymnogyps californianus) and 9 miles northeast and northwest of the APE for Hoover’s spurge (Chamesyce hooveri) and San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass (Orcuttia inaequalis).
2.5 WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS AND NATIVE WILDLIFE NURSERY SITES Wildlife movement corridors are routes that animals regularly and predictably follow during seasonal migration, dispersal from native ranges, daily travel within home ranges, and inter-population movements.
Movement corridors in California are typically associated with valleys, ridgelines, and rivers and creeks supporting riparian vegetation.
It is unlikely Cameron Creek serves as a movement corridor with the unpredictable water volume of Cameron Creek. Additionally, there are alternative routes such as the creek roads and the Western Pacific Railroad.
Native wildlife nursery sites are areas where a species or group of similar species raise their young in a concentrated place, such as maternity bat roosts. Several large valley oak trees were observed in Cameron Creek that could be used as maternity bat roosts within the APE.
2.6 SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS AND ANIMALS
California contains several rare plant and animal species. In this context, “rare” is defined as a species known to have low populations or limited distributions. Conversion of habitats to accommodate human population growth in turn reduces the already-limited suitable habitat for rare species. This results in rare and sensitive species becoming increasingly more vulnerable to extirpation. State and federal regulations have provided the CDFW and USFWS with mechanisms for conserving and protecting the diversity of plant and animal species native to California. Numerous native plants and animals have been formally designated as “threatened” or “endangered” under state and federal endangered species legislation. Other formal designations include “candidate” for listing or “species of special concern” by CDFW. The CNPS has its list of native plants considered rare, threatened, or endangered. Collectively these animals and plants are referred to as “special status species.”
288
City of Visalia November 1, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Two: Existing Conditions
www.provostandpritchard.com 2-8
A query of the CNDDB for occurrences of special status plant and animal species was conducted for the Visalia and Exeter U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangles that contain the APE, and for the 10 surrounding USGS quadrangles: Traver, Monson, Ivanhoe, Woodlake, Goshen, Visalia, Exeter, Rocky Hill, Paige, Tulare, Cairns Corner, Lindsay. A query of the IPaC was also completed for the APE. These species, and their potential to occur within the APE, are listed in Table 1 and Table 2 below. Other special status species that did not show up in the CNDDB query, but have the potential to occur in the vicinity, are also included in Table 3. Species lists obtained from CNDDB and IPaC are available in Appendix B and Appendix C, respectively. All relevant sources of information, as discussed in the Study Methodology section of this report, as well as field observations, were used to determine if any special status species have the potential to occur within the APE
Table 1: List of Special Status Plants with Potential to Occur on the APE Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the APE
Alkali-sink goldfields
(Lasthenia
chrysantha)
CNPS 1B
Found in vernal pool and wet
saline flat habitats in the San
Joaquin Valley region at
elevations below 700 feet.
Blooms February – April.
Absent. Vernal pools were not
observed within the APE.
Brittlescale
(Atriplex depressa)
CNPS 1B
Found in the Central Valley in
alkaline or clay soils, typically in
meadows or annual grasslands
at elevations below 1,100 feet.
Sometimes associated with
vernal pools. Blooms June –
October.
Absent. The soil and habitat
required for this species were not
observed within the APE.
Calico monkeyflower
(Diplacus pictus)
CNPS 1B
Found in the Sierra Nevada
foothills and the Tehachapi
mountains in bare, sunny,
shrubby areas, around granite
outcrops within foothill
woodland communities at
elevations between 450 and
4,100 feet. Blooms March –
May.
Absent. The APE is outside of the
current known range of this species.
California jewelflower
(Caulanthus
californicus)
FE, CE, CNPS
1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley
and western Transverse Ranges
in sandy soils. Occurs on flats
and slopes, generally in nonalkaline grassland at elevations between 200 and 6,100 feet.
Blooms February – April.
Absent. The soil and habitat
required for this species were not
observed within the APE.
California alkali grass
(Puccinellia simplex)
CNPS 1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley
and other parts of California in
saline flats and mineral springs
within valley grassland and
wetland-riparian communities at
elevations below 3,000 feet.
Blooms March – May.
Absent. The habitat required for this
species was not observed within the
APE.
289
City of Visalia November 1, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Two: Existing Conditions
www.provostandpritchard.com 2-9
Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the APE
California satintail
(Imperata brevifolia)
CNPS 2B
Often found in wet springs,
meadows, streambanks, and
floodplains, and can also be
found in coastal scrub, riparian
scrub, Mojavean desert scrub,
chaparral, and alkali seeps at
elevations below 1,600 feet.
Blooms September – May.
Unlikely. The habitat required for
this species was not observed within
the APE. The most recent recorded
observation occurred in an
undetermined location two miles
northwest of the APE in 1895.
Coulter’s goldfields
(Lasthenia glabrata
ssp. coulteri)
CNPS 1B
Found on alkaline and saline
soils in vernal pools and playas in
grassland at elevations below
4,500 feet. Blooms April – May.
Absent. Vernal pools were not
observed within the APE.
Earlimart orache
(Atriplex cordulata
var. erecticaulis)
CNPS 1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley
in saline and alkaline soils,
typically within valley grasslands
at elevations below 400 feet.
Blooms August – September.
Absent. The soils and habitat
required by this species were not
observed within the APE.
Greene’s tuctoria
(Tuctoria greenei)
FE, CNPS 1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley
and other parts of California in
vernal pools within valley
grassland, wetland, and riparian
communities at elevations below
3,500 feet. Blooms May –
September.
Absent. The habitat required for this
species was not observed within the
APE.
Heartscale
(Atriplex cordulata
var. cordulata)
CNPS 1B
Found in the Central Valley in
saline or alkaline soils within
shadscale scrub, valley
grassland, and wetland-riparian
communities at elevations below
250 feet. Blooms June – July.
Absent. The soil and habitat
required for this species were not
observed within the APE.
Hoover’s spurge
(Euphorbia hooveri)
FT, CNPS 1B
Found in vernal pools within
valley grassland, freshwater
wetland, and riparian
communities at elevations below
800 feet. Blooms July –
September.
Absent. Vernal pools were not
observed within the APE.
Kaweah brodiaea
(Brodiaea insignis)
CE, CNPS 1B
Found in the Sierra Nevada
foothills in foothill woodland and
valley grassland communities at
elevations between 650 and
1,700 feet. Blooms May – June.
Absent. The APE is outside the
current known range of this species.
Lassics lupine
(Lupinus constancei)
FE, CE, CNPS
1B
Found near the summits of
mountains in Humboldt and
Trinity County in serpentine
communities between 5,000 to
6,000 feet in elevation. Blooms
July.
Absent. The APE is outside the
current known range of this species.
Lesser saltscale
(Atriplex minuscula)
CNPS 1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley
in sandy, alkaline soils in alkali
scrub, valley and foothill
grassland, and alkali sink
communities at elevations below
Absent. The soils and the habitat
required by this species were not
observed within the APE.
290
City of Visalia November 1, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Two: Existing Conditions
www.provostandpritchard.com 2-10
Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the APE
750 feet. Blooms April –
October.
Recurved larkspur
(Delphinium
recurvatum)
CNPS 1B
Occurs in chenopod scrub,
cismontane woodland, and
grassland habitats on poorly
drained, fine, alkaline soils; often
in valley saltbush or valley
chenopod scrub communities at
elevations between 100 and
2,600 feet. Blooms March –
June.
Absent. The soils and habitat
required by this species were not
observed within the APE.
Sanford’s arrowhead
(Sagittaria sanfordii)
CNPS 1B
This species is an aquatic plant
and is found in the San Joaquin
Valley and other parts of
California in freshwater marshes,
ponds, canals, and ditches at
elevations below 1,000 feet.
Blooms May – October.
Unlikely. Cameron Creek does not
contain water on a regular basis to
be able to support this species. The
most recent recorded observation
occurred nine miles northeast of the
APE in 2018.
San Joaquin adobe
sunburst
(Pseudobahia
peirsonii)
FT, CE, CNPS
1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley
and the Sierra Nevada foothills
in bare, dark clay soils in valley
and foothill grassland and
cismontane woodland
communities at elevations
between 300 and 3,000 feet.
Blooms March – May.
Absent. Soils and habitat required
by this species were not observed
within the APE.
San Joaquin Valley
Orcutt grass
(Orcuttia inaequalis)
FT, CE, CNPS
1B
Found in the eastern San Joaquin
Valley and the Sierra Nevada
foothills in vernal pools within
valley grassland, freshwater
wetland, and wetland-riparian
communities at elevations below
2,600 feet. Blooms April –
September.
Absent. Vernal pool and wetland
communities were not observed
within the APE.
Spiny-sepaled buttoncelery
(Eryngium
spinosepalum)
CNPS 1B
Found in the Sierra Nevada
foothills and the San Joaquin
Valley in vernal pools, swales,
and roadside ditches. Often
associated with clay soils in
vernal pools within grassland
communities. Occurs at
elevations between 50 and
4,200 feet. Blooms April – July.
Absent. Vernal pools were not
observed within the APE.
Striped adobe-lily
(Fritillaria striata)
CT, CNPS 1B
Found in the Sierra Nevada
foothills in adobe soil within
valley grassland and foothill
woodland communities at
elevations below 3,300 feet.
Blooms February – April.
Absent. The APE is outside the
current known range of this species.
Subtle orache
(Atriplex subtilis)
CNPS 1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley
in saline depressions in alkaline
soils within valley and foothill
grassland communities at
Unlikely. The soils required by this
species were not present within the
APE. The most recent recorded
observation occurred in an
291
City of Visalia November 1, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Two: Existing Conditions
www.provostandpritchard.com 2-11
Table 2: List of Special Status Animals with Potential to Occur on the APE Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the APE
elevations below 300 feet.
Blooms June – October.
unconfirmed location eight miles
northwest of the in 2002.
Vernal pool smallscale
(Atriplex persistens)
CNPS 1B
Occurs in the Central Valley in
alkaline vernal pools at
elevations below 400 feet.
Blooms June – September.
Absent. No vernal pools were
observed within the APE.
Winter’s sunflower
(Helianthus winteri)
CNPS 1B
Found in the Sierra Nevada
foothills on steep, south-facing
grassy slopes, rock outcrops, and
road-cuts at elevations ranging
from 600 to 1,500 feet. Blooms
year-round.
Absent. The APE is located outside
the current known elevational range
of this species.
Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the APE
American badger
(Taxidea taxus)
CSSC
Prefers drier open stages of
shrub, forest, and herbaceous
habitats with friable soils to
burrow, but can be found within
numerous habitats throughout
California, including the margins
of agricultural lands. Needs a
sufficient prey base of burrowing
rodents.
Possible. The banks along Cameron
Creek can provide suitable denning
habitat for this species. Also,
numerous California ground squirrel
burrows were observed throughout
the creek providing a prey source
for this species. The most recent
recorded observation occurred two
miles northeast of the APE in 1994.
Blunt-nosed leopard
lizard
(Gambelia sila)
FE, CE, CFP
Occurs in the San Joaquin Valley
region in expansive, arid areas
with scattered vegetation. Today
they inhabit non-native
grassland and alkali sink scrub
communities of the valley floor
marked by poorly drained,
alkaline, and saline soils. They
can be found at elevations
ranging from approx. 100 to
2,600 feet. They are absent from
areas with steep slopes and
dense vegetation, and areas
subject to seasonal flooding.
Adults may excavate shallow
burrows but rely on deeper preexisting rodent burrows for hibernation and reproduction.
Absent. No suitable habitat was
observed within the APE.
Buena Vista Lake
ornate shrew
(Sorex ornatus
relictus)
FE, CSSC
Prefers moist soils, inhabiting
marshes, swamps, and riparian
shrublands in the Tulare Basin.
Uses stumps, logs, and leaf litter
for cover.
Absent. No suitable habitat was
observed within the APE.
Burrowing owl
(Athene cunicularia)
CSSC
Resides in open, dry grasslands,
deserts, scrublands, and other
areas with low growing
vegetation. Nests and roosts
underground in existing burrows
created by mammals, most often
Possible. The APE had numerous
California ground squirrel burrows
that could be used by the species
that were observed along the creek.
The most recent recorded sighting
292
City of Visalia November 1, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Two: Existing Conditions
www.provostandpritchard.com 2-12
Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the APE
by ground squirrels, and humanmade structures.occurred 12 miles northwest of the APE in 2017.
California tiger
salamander – central
California DPS
(Ambystoma
californiense)
FT, CT
Requires vernal pools or
seasonal ponds for breeding and
small mammal burrows for
aestivation. Generally found in
grassland and oak savannah
plant communities in central
California from sea level to 1,500
feet in elevation. Can migrate up
to 1.3 miles to breed.
Unlikely. The APE had small
mammal burrows for the adults of
this species to use during the nonbreeding season as upland habitat.
There were no vernal pools or
seasonal ponds within the APE or
surrounding area for this species to
breed in. The most recent recorded
observation occurred 9 miles
northwest of the APE in 2002.
California condor
(Gymnogyps
californianus)
FE, CE, CFP
Typically nests in cavities in
canyon or cliff faces but has also
been recorded nesting in giant
sequoias in Tulare County.
Requires vast expanses of open
savannah, grassland, and/or
foothill chaparral in mountain
ranges of moderate altitude.
Forages for carrion up to 100
miles from their roost/nest sites.
Unlikely. The species could forage in
the area, but the APE lacks suitable
nesting habitat. The CNDDB has no
observation records for this species
within the APE and the entire 11
quads.
Crotch’s bumble bee
(Bombus crotchii)
CCE
Occurs throughout coastal
California, as well as east to the
Sierra Nevada-Cascade crest,
and south into Mexico. Food
plant genera include
snapdragons, scorpionweeds,
primroses, poppies, and
buckwheats.
Unlikely. The APE lacked any of the
necessary forage plants for this
species. The most recent recorded
observation of the species occurred
in an undetermined location
approximately seven miles east of
the APE in 2010.
Foothill yellow-legged
frog – south Sierra
Distinct Population
Segment
(Rana boylii)
FC, CE
Frequents rocky streams and
rivers with rocky substrate and
open, sunny banks in forests,
chaparral, and woodlands.
Occasionally found in isolated
pools, vegetated backwaters,
and deep, shaded, spring-fed
pools.
Absent. The habitat and habitat
features required by this species
were not observed within the APE.
Loggerhead shrike
(Lanius ludovicianus)
CSSC
Frequents open habitats with
sparse shrubs and trees, other
suitable perches, bare ground,
and low herbaceous cover. In
the Central Valley, this species
nests in riparian areas, desert
scrub, and agricultural
hedgerows.
Possible. Nesting habitat such as
trees greater than five feet tall with
dense foliage was observed. Also,
the creek and agricultural fields
provided ample foraging
opportunities for this species within
the APE. The most recent recorded
observation occurred 12 miles
northwest of the APE in 1992.
Monarch butterfly
(Danaus plexippus)
FC
Roosts in wind-protected tree
groves (eucalyptus, Monterey
pine, cypress), with nectar and
water sources nearby. Larval
host plants consist of milkweeds.
Winter roost sites extend along
Possible. Suitable overwintering
habitat in the form of valley oak
trees with suitable wind protection
was observed with the APE.
However, the trees in the APE are
not expected to be removed and
293
City of Visalia November 1, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Two: Existing Conditions
www.provostandpritchard.com 2-13
Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the APE
the Pacific Coast from northern
Mendocino to Baja California,
Mexico.
therefore will not impact this
species. The most recent recorded
observation occurred three miles
east of the APE in 2019 in the
Kaweah Oaks Preserve.
Northern California
legless lizard
(Anniella pulchra)
CSSC
Found primarily underground,
burrowing in loose, sandy soil.
Forages in loose soil and leaf
litter during the day.
Occasionally observed on the
surface at dusk and night.
Unlikely. The soil was too
compacted for this species to
burrow through. The nearest
recorded sighting occurred three
miles northeast of the APE in 2015.
Northern leopard frog
(Lithobates pipiens)
CSSC
Inhabits grassland, wet
meadows, potholes, forests,
woodland, brushlands, springs,
canals, bogs, marshes, and
reservoirs in scattered locations
in California. Generally, prefers
permanent water with abundant
riparian vegetation.
Unlikely. Cameron Creek does not
contain water regularly for the
creek to be a suitable breeding
habitat for this species. Cameron
Creek also has sparse aquatic
vegetation making it less likely this
species would inhabit the creek. The
surrounding areas are either
orchards or residential homes, with
little to no tall vegetation for nonbreeding adults to inhabit during the summer. The most recent
recorded observation occurred 10
miles north of the APE in 1961.
Northwestern pond
turtle
(Actinemys
marmorata)
FPT, CSSC
An aquatic turtle of ponds,
marshes, slow-moving rivers,
streams, and irrigation ditches
with riparian vegetation.
Requires adequate basking sites
and sandy banks or grassy open
fields to deposit eggs.
Unlikely. Cameron Creek does not
contain enough water regularly to
be considered suitable habitat for
this species. Cameron Creek also
contains sparse aquatic vegetation
and basking location for this species.
The nearest recorded observation
occurred in an undetermined
location 2.5 miles northwest of the
APE in 1897.
Pallid bat
(Antrozous pallidus)
CSSC
Found in grasslands, chaparral,
and woodlands, where it feeds
on ground- and vegetationdwelling arthropods, and
occasionally takes insects in
flight. Prefers to roost in rock
crevices, but may also use tree
cavities, caves, bridges, and
other human-made structures.
Possible. Bare open habitat suitable
for foraging was observed within
the APE. Valley oak trees and
bridges that could be used by the
females during the breeding were
also observed within the APE. The
nearest recorded observation
occurred 2.5 miles north of the APE
in 2004.
San Joaquin kit fox
(Vulpes macrotis
mutica)
FE, CT
Opportunistically forages in a
variety of habitats. Dens in
burrows within alkali sink, valley
grassland, and woodland
habitats in valleys and adjacent
foothills and in human-made
structures in cities, rangeland,
and agricultural areas.
Possible. The creek banks could
provide denning habitat for this
species. Additionally, California
ground squirrels and their burrows
were observed throughout the APE
which would provide denning
opportunity and a stable prey base
for this species. Also, there were
some ruderal fields adjacent to the
294
City of Visalia November 1, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Two: Existing Conditions
www.provostandpritchard.com 2-14
Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the APE
APE this species could use to forage
in. The nearest recorded
observation occurred a quarter
square mile from the APE in 1975.
Swainson’s hawk
(Buteo swainsoni)
CT
Nests in large trees in open
areas adjacent to grasslands,
grain or alfalfa fields, or livestock
pastures suitable for supporting
rodent populations.
Present. A Swainson’s hawk was
observed flying over the APE and
into a nearby tree within the APE
during the recon survey. The
Swainson’s hawk was then observed
flying into a valley oak tree that was
in an agricultural field
approximately a half mile west of
the APE.
Tipton kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys
nitratoides
nitratoides)
FE, CE
Inhabits saltbush scrub and sink
scrub communities in the Tulare
Lake Basin of the southern San
Joaquin Valley. This species
needs soft friable soils to
burrow.
Absent. Suitable habitat and soils
required by this species were not
observed within the APE.
Tricolored blackbird
(Agelaius tricolor)
CT, CSSC
Nests colonially near fresh water
in dense cattails or tules, or in
thickets of riparian shrubs.
Forages in grassland and
cropland. Large colonies are
often found foraging in dairy
farm feed fields.
Unlikely. Cameron Creek did not
contain enough aquatic vegetation
to support nesting activity for this
species. The nearest recorded
observation occurred eight miles
east of the APE in 2014.
Valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
(Desmocerus
californicus
dimorphus)
FT
Lives in mature elderberry
shrubs in the Central Valley and
adjacent foothills from Tehama
County south through Merced
and Mariposa Counties with two
scattered populations in Madera
and Fresno Counties. Adults are
active from March to June.
Absent. No elderberry shrubs were
observed within the APE.
Vernal pool fairy
shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi)
FT
Occupies vernal and seasonal
pools, with clear to tea-colored
water, in grass or mud-bottomed
swales, and basalt depression
pools.
Absent. No vernal pools were
observed within the APE.
Vernal pool tadpole
shrimp
(Lepidurus packardi)
FE
Occurs in vernal pools, clear to
tea-colored water, in grass or
mud-bottomed swales, and
basalt depression pools.
Absent. No vernal pools were
observed within the APE.
Western mastiff bat
(Eumops perotis
californicus)
CSSC
Found in open, arid to semi-arid
habitats, including dry desert
washes, flood plains, chaparral,
oak woodland, open ponderosa
pine forest, grassland, and
agricultural areas, where it feeds
on insects in flight. Roosts most
commonly in crevices in cliff
faces but may also use high
buildings and tunnels.
Possible. The species could use the
bridge as roosting habitat.
Particularly when water is in
Cameron Creek which would create
forage opportunities for this
species. The nearest recorded
observation occurred three and a
half miles west of the APE in 2005.
295
City of Visalia November 1, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Two: Existing Conditions
www.provostandpritchard.com 2-15
*EXPLANATION OF OCCURRENCE DESIGNATIONS AND STATUS CODES
Present: Species observed on the APE at time of field surveys or during recent past.
Possible: Species not observed on the APE, but it could occur there from time to time.
Unlikely: Species not observed on the APE, and would not be expected to occur there except, perhaps, as a transient.
Absent: Species not observed on the APE and precluded from occurring there due to absence of suitable habitat.
STATUS CODES
FE Federally Endangered CE California Endangered
FT Federally Threatened CT California Threatened
FPT Federally Threatened (Proposed) CSSC California Species of Special Concern
CNPS LISTING
1B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in 2B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere California, but more common elsewhere.
Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the APE
Western spadefoot
(Spea hammondii)
FPT, CSSC
The majority of the time this
species is terrestrial and occurs
in small mammal burrows and
soil cracks, sometimes in the
bottom of dried pools. Prefers
open areas with sandy or
gravelly soils, in a variety of
habitats including mixed
woodlands, grasslands, coastal
sage scrub, chaparral, sandy
washes, lowlands, river
floodplains, alluvial fans, playas,
alkali flats, foothills, and
mountains. Vernal or seasonal
pools, that hold water for a
minimum of three weeks, are
necessary for breeding.
Unlikely. Small mammal burrows for
adults of this species to occupy in
the non-breeding season were
observed within the APE. However,
no breeding habitat was observed
within the APE. The most recent
recorded observation occurred
eight miles east of the APE in 1991.
Western yellow-billed
cuckoo
(Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis)
FT, CE
Suitable nesting habitat in
California includes dense
riparian willow-cottonwood and
mesquite habitats along a
perennial river. Once common in
the California Central Valley, as
well as coastal valleys and
riparian habitats east of the
Sierra Nevada, habitat loss now
constrains the California
breeding population to small
numbers of birds.
Absent. The APE is outside the
current known range of this species.
296
City of Visalia November 1,
2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Three: Impacts and Mitigation
www.provostandpritchard.com 3-1
3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
3.1 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
3.1.1 CEQA
General plans, area plans, and specific projects are subject to the provisions of CEQA. The purpose of CEQA is to assess the impacts of proposed projects on the environment prior to project implementation. Impacts to biological resources are just one type of environmental impact assessed under CEQA and vary from project to project in terms of scope and magnitude. Projects requiring removal of vegetation may result in the mortality or displacement of animals associated with this vegetation. Animals adapted to humans, roads, buildings, and pets may replace those species formerly occurring on a site. Plants and animals that are rare may be destroyed or displaced. Sensitive habitats such as wetlands and riparian woodlands may be altered or destroyed. Such impacts may be considered either “significant” or “less than significant” under CEQA. According to CEQA Statute and Guidelines (AEP 2023), “significant effect on the environment” means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic interest. Specific project impacts to biological resources may be considered “significant” if they would:
• Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS;
• Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS; • Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; • Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;
• Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or
• Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state HCP.
Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a) states that a project may trigger the requirement to make a “mandatory finding of significance” if the project has the potential to:
“Substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.”
3.1.2 NEPA
Federal projects are subject to the provisions of NEPA. The purpose of NEPA is to assess the effects of a proposed action on the human environment, assess the significance of those effects, and recommend measures that if implemented would mitigate those effects. As used in NEPA, a determination that certain 297
City of Visalia November 1,
2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Three: Impacts and Mitigation
www.provostandpritchard.com 3-2
effects on the human environment are “significant” requires considerations of both context and intensity (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1508.27).
For the purposes of assessing effects of an action on biological resources, the relevant context is often local.
The analysis may, however, require a comparison of the action area’s biological resources with the biological resources of an entire region. Project activities must have a federal nexus and discuss federally listed species, and/or designated critical habitat that may be affected in the action area.
Federal agencies are required to determine whether their actions may affect listed or proposed species and designated critical habitat. The primary role of this document is to provide agencies conclusion and the rationale to support those conclusions regarding the effects of any proposed actions of the project on protected resources. Document content and recommended elements are identified in 50 CFR 402.12(f).
Under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, federal agencies must consult with NOAA Fisheries or the USFWS, depending on the species, through an informal or formal consultation when any action the agency carries out, funds, or authorizes may affect either a species listed as threatened or endangered under the Act, or any critical habitat designated for it.
Once resources are assessed an Endangered Species Act Section 7 finding needs to be made regarding proposed or listed species and/or designated critical habitat that may be present in the project area. This report will provide the necessary information for the lead federal agency to make a determination on affects. This finding may result in one of the following determinations:
• “No effect” - means there will be no impacts, positive or negative, to listed or proposed resources.
Generally, this means no listed resources will be exposed to action and its environmental consequences. Concurrence from the Service is not required. • “May affect, but not likely to adversely affect" means that all effects are beneficial, insignificant, or discountable. Beneficial effects have contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects to the species or habitat. Insignificant effects relate to the size of the impact and include those effects that are undetectable, not measurable, or cannot be evaluated. Discountable effects are those extremely unlikely to occur. These determinations require written concurrence from the Service.
• “May affect, likely to adversely affect" means that listed resources are likely to be exposed to the action or its environmental consequences and will respond in a negative manner to the exposure.
3.2 RELEVANT POLICIES AND GOALS
3.2.1 THE TULARE COUNTY ORDINANCE
The Tulare County General Plan contains the following objectives and policies related to the project:
3.2.1.1.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
ERM-1: To preserve and protect sensitive significant habitats, enhance biodiversity, and promote healthy ecosystems throughout the County.
ERM-1.1: Protection of Rare and Endangered Species The County shall ensure the protection of environmentally sensitive wildlife and plant life, including those species designated as rare, 298
City of Visalia November 1,
2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Three: Impacts and Mitigation
www.provostandpritchard.com 3-3
threatened, and/or endangered by State and/or Federal government, through compatible land use development.