02 2024-11 Cameron Creek Final IS-MND_v2 — Visalia City Council, November 18, 2024 (part 1 of 2)

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

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 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 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

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

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 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

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 e nvironment and shoul d 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 substan tial 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) 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.

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 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 Ro ad 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 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 init iate 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.

Chapter 2: Project Description
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 2-4

Figure 2-1:Regional Location Map

Chapter 2: Project Description
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 2-1

Figure 2-2: Topographic Quadrangle Map

Chapter 2: Project Description
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 2-2

Figure 2-3: Aerial Map

Chapter 2: Project Description
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 2-3

Figure 2-4: General Plan Land Use Designation Map

Chapter 2: Project Description
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 2-4

Figure 2-5: Zone District Map

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 Impa ct” 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).

Chapter 3: Determination
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
October 2024 3-2

3.2 DETERMINATION
On th
e 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 N
EGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I
find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there w
ill not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or a
greed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE D ECLARATION will be prepared.

I
find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an EN
VIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I
find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially s
ignificant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been a
dequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable lega l standards, and 2) has been
a
ddressed 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, be
cause all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or N
EGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) hav e been avoided or mitigated
pu
rsuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures tha
t are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

__
_____________________________________ __
___________________________
S
ignature Dat
e

__
_____________________________________
Pr
inted Name/Position
October 4, 2024
Brandon Smith, Principal Planner

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) 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.

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 non-
agricultural use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?

d) Result in the loss of 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 1800 s. Tulare County is known for its agricultural production as it was the number one agriculture producing county in the United States for 2020.3 In 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) 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 administra tive 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)
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 d isturb 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.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-6

Figure 4-1: Farmland Map

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 (NO 2) as “does not meet the primary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or

7 (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2012) Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-8
“better than national standards.” For sulfur dioxide (SO 2), 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 PM 10 based on the likelihood that they would violate national PM 10 standards. All other areas are designated “unclassified.” According to the USEPA the SJVAPCD was in non -attainment for two pollutant concentrations, with PM 2.5 (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/
Unclassified 8-hour 9 ppm 9 ppm
8-hour
(Lake Tahoe)
6 ppm –
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)
AAM 0.030 ppm Attainment 53 ppb Attainment/
Unclassified 1-hour 0.18 ppm 100 ppb
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
AAM – Attainment -- Attainment/
Unclassified 24-hour 0.04 ppm --
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)
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
Visibility-
Reducing
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 thre e 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 (NO X), PM10, and PM 2.5. The SJVAPCD Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) adopted in 2015 contains thresholds for ROG and NOX; Sulfur Oxides (SO X), 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. T he SJVAB also exceeds air quality standards for PM 10, and PM 2.5; 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.

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.

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 e ach 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.

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.

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 ficus- indica).

9 (Weatherspark)
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.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-15

Figure 4-2: Habitats Map – Measurement Check Structure

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-16

Figure 4-3: Habitats Map – Rector Check Structure

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-17

Figure 4-4: Habitats Map – Lovers Check Structure

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-18

Figure 4-5: Creek Habitat

Figure 4-6: Creek Habitat

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-19

Figure 4-7: Ruderal Habitat

Figure 4-8: Ruderal Habitat

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 rip arian 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 as sociated 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.”
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.

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.

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 button -
celery
(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 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 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.

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.

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.

The surrounding areas are either
orchards or residential homes, with
little to no tall vegetation for non-
breeding 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 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.

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 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.

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.

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 ora che, 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 kangar oo rat, tricolored blackbird, va lley 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 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 P roject 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 espe cially 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 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 project- related 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 un der CEQA and NEPA. While the Project area may remove some potential foraging habitat for SJKF, there is abundant foraging ha bitat adjacent to the site that could be used, and implementation of the proposed P roject 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.

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 is located 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 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 pr otection 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 an d 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 Cen tral 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.

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), a nd 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 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 requir ed. 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 t hat 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.

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” th at 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).

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, pro per 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 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.
(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.

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:

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 indi cators (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 sket ch 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.

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 C alifornia Registe r 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 th at 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.

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 ass ociations, 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.

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 propo sed 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 th e 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 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.

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 Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.

ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994) creating substantial direct 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 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 approximatel y 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 liquefac tion 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, hig h 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)
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 a rea 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 Ground water 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)
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 acre s 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 woul d 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 pr operties 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.

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 (CO 2) is an odorless, colorless natural GHG. CO 2 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 (CH 4) 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 (N 2O), also known as laughing gas, is a colorless GHG. N 2O 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 stratosphe ric ozone; therefore, their production was stopped as required by the Montreal Protocol in 1987.

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 a nd semiconductor manufacture.

Sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6) 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 indu stry, 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 an d 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 CO 2 to the global atmosphere during the past 20 years are due to fossil fuel burning. Atmospheric concentrations of CO 2, CH4, and N2O have increased by at least 40 percent, 150 percent, and 20 percent respectively since the year 1750. GHG emissions are typic ally 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 CH 4 has the same contribution to the greenhouse effect as approximately 25 tons of CO 2.

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 -than- significant 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 emis sions 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 qua ntified 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) 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 construction - generated 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 CO 2e 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.

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 Cortes e 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 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 -Leaks- Investigations-Cleanups sites, Department of Defense sites, and Land Disposal program. A search of the DTSC EnviroStor19 database and the SWRCB Geo Tracker20 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 respir atory 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 ac tivities 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 manne r 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)
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 lo wer 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 Enviro Stor and Geo Tracker 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.

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) 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 fr om soil disturbances, construction equipment, building materials, and workers. Erosion potential an d 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 compar ed 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)
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 additio n, 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, i mpacts 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 applic able effluent standards and prevent any potential groundwater quality impacts. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with a water quality control plan.

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.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 4-54

Figure 4-9: FEMA Flood Map

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 t he 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.

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 su pply 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 includes the 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.

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.

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 F ederal 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)
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.

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 U nited 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) 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.

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 significa nt 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:

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.

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 play grounds, 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 wor king 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.

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. Altogeth er, 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.

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 m inor 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 o f transportation impacts. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of a project on transit and nonmotorized travel. Construction of 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.

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 t he 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 fo rmal 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 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 C alifornia Register of Historical Resources, the National Register of Historic Places, and the California State Built En vironment 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.

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.

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.

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)
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.

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)
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 r equire 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.

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 self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a p lant 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 w ould involve no potent ial 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 ma jor period of California history or prehistory.

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 e ffects 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 as- needed 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.

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 mit igation 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.

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 requi red 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

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

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, conditio ns 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 i s 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 C alifornia 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

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 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.

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 BIO-
910
(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

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

BIO-
1011
(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

BIO-
1112
(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 BIO-
1213
(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

BIO-
1314
(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

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
BIO-
1415
(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 t he 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, pro per 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 BIO-
1516
(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

BIO-
1617
(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

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
BIO-
1718
(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

BIO-
1819
(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 d en. 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 dete rmined 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 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.

During construction
activities Continuously City of Visalia

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.

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/Groundwater- Management/Data-and-Tools/Files/Statewide-Reports/California-Groundwater-Update- 2013/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/quiet- zone.

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.

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/air- quality-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-Year- Round.

Appendices
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 A-1
Appendix A: CalEEMod Output Files

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 Y ear, 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
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
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
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
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
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
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 Y ear 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 — — — —
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 Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear 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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 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 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
12 / 39

2.33—< 0.005< 0.0052.322.32—< 0.005—< 0.005< 0.005—< 0.005< 0.0050.020.01< 0.005< 0.005Off-Roa 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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

0.01 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 — — — — — — — Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
14 / 39

0.000.000.000.000.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Onsite 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
15 / 39
1,720—0.010.071,7141,714—0.43—0.430.46—0.460.0210.010.11.091.29Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 5.31 5.31 — 2.57 2.57 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
21 / 39

0.00—0.000.000.000.00—0.00—0.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.00Landsca 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) 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
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
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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
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
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
Cameron Creek Detailed Report, 8/7/2024
30 / 39
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)

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 Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear 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/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
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
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 Y ear 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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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 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 0.6 90.72 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1 367 0.4 6 0.6 66.06 Demolition Concrete/Idustrial Saws 1 8 33 0.73 6 0.6 47.52 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 6 367 0.4 2 0.6 132.12 Grading Graders 1 6 148 0.41 2 0.6 53.28 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7 84 0.37 2 0.6 35.28 Building Construction Cranes 1 4 367 0.29 72 0.6 3,170.88 Building Construction Forklifts 2 6 82 0.2 72 0.6 1,062.72 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 84 0.37 72 0.6 1,451.52 Site Preparation Graders 1 8 148 0.41 4 0.6 142.08 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 84 0.37 4 0.6 80.64 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 1,800 720 7.7 6.8 13,860 4,896 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
Appendices
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 B-1
Appendix B: Biological Resources Evaluation

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

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.

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 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
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

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-than- significant 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 dept h 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 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.
?
ÎA
ðEA
¢EA
¹E
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 sC 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
Mileso!
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.

Rd 152
E K Rd
Cherry Ave
Ave 292Visalia Pkwy
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 Limito
prepared by: benjamint6/25/2024 \\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Visalia_City of-1391\139124002-Cameron Creek\400 GIS\Map\CityOfVisalia_Cameron_Creek_Recharge\CityOfVisalia_Cameron_Creek_Recharge.aprx City of Visalia - Cameron Creek Recharge Project
Area of Potential Effect Map
NAIP 2022 Imagery
Fig. 3 Page 1-4
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; Jep son 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 D epartment of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).

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 8 8- 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 Ma y (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 was identified 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 fo r wildlife habitat and agriculture.

T18S R25E
T19S R25E
T18S
R26E
T19S
R26E
2627 25
28 30
31 36
35 33 34
03 02
04 01
06 10 11
09 0712

EXETERVISALIA
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
City of Visalia - Cameron Creek Recharge Projecto
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 1-3
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 ficus- indica).

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 follow ing 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.

S Rio Vista St
Ave 288E Walnut Ave
Rd 148
Cameron Creek
0 250 500
Feet
Proposed Structure Location
Area of Potential Effect (4 Acres)
Visalia City Limit
Habitats
Creek
Ruderalo
prepared by: benjamint6/25/2024 \\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Visalia_City of-1391\139124002-Cameron Creek\400 GIS\Map\CityOfVisalia_Cameron_Creek_Recharge\CityOfVisalia_Cameron_Creek_Recharge.aprx City of Visalia - Cameron Creek Recharge Project
Rector Check Habitats Map
NAIP 2022 Imagery
Fig. 4 Page 2-4
Ave 292
Rd 156
Cameron Creek
0 250 500
Feet
Proposed Structure Location
Area of Potential Effect (2.4 Acres)
Habitats
Creek
Ruderalo
prepared by: benjamint6/25/2024 \\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Visalia_City of-1391\139124002-Cameron Creek\400 GIS\Map\CityOfVisalia_Cameron_Creek_Recharge\CityOfVisalia_Cameron_Creek_Recharge.aprx City of Visalia - Cameron Creek Recharge Project
Measurement Check Habitats Map
NAIP 2022 Imagery
F
ig. 5 Page 2-5
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
Ruderalo
prepared by: benjamint6/25/2024 \\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Visalia_City of-1391\139124002-Cameron Creek\400 GIS\Map\CityOfVisalia_Cameron_Creek_Recharge\CityOfVisalia_Cameron_Creek_Recharge.aprx City of Visalia - Cameron Creek Recharge Project
Lovers Check Habitats Map
NAIP 2022 Imagery
F
ig. 6 Page 2-6
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.

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 as sociated with valleys, ridgelines, and rivers and creeks supporting riparian vegetation.

It is unlikely Cameron Creek serves as a movement corridor w ith the unpredictable water volume of Cameron Creek. Additionally, there are alternative routes such as the creek roads and the Western Pacific Railroad.

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 habitat s 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.”

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 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.

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.

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 button-
celery
(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
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 pre-
existing 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
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 human-
made 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 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
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
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 non-
breeding 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.

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 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
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.

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.

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 t o 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 impact s 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 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. Pr oject 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 regar ding 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 rel ate 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, 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.

ERM-1.2: Development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas The County shall limit or modify proposed development within areas that contain sensitive habitat for special status species and direct development into less significant habitat areas. Development in natural habitats shall be controlled so as to minimize erosion and maximize beneficial vegetative growth.

ERM-1.9: Coordination of Management on Adjacent Lands The County shall work with other government land management agencies (such as the Bureau of Land Management, US Forest Service, National Park Service) to preserve and protect biological resources, including those within and adjacent to designated critical habitat, reserves, preserves, and other protected lands, while maintaining the ability to utilize and enjoy the natural resources in the County.

ERM-1.12: Management of Oak Woodland Communities The County shall support the conservation and management of oak woodland communities and their habitats.

3.2.1.1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
FGMP-8.8: Erosion Mitigation Measures The County shall require erosion mitigation measures in new developments to prevent soil loss.

3.2.1.1.3 WATER QUALITY
WR-2: To provide for the current and long -range water needs of the County and for the protection of the quality of surface water and groundwater resources.

WR-2.3: Best Management Practices (BMPs) The County shall continue to require the use of feasible BMPs and other mitigation measures designed to protect surface water and groundwater from the adverse effects of construction activities, agricultural operations req uiring a County Permit and urban runoff in coordination with the Water Quality Control Board.

3.2.2 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Permits may be required from CDFW and/or USFWS if activities associated with a project have the potential to result in the “take” of a species listed as threatened or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and/or Endangered Species Act (ESA), respectively. Take is defined by CESA as, “to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill” (California Fish and Game Code, Section 86). Take is more broadly defined by the ESA to include “harm” (16 US C, Section 1532(19), 50 CFR, Section 17.3). CDFW and USFWS are responsible agencies under CEQA and NEPA. Both agencies review CEQA and NEPA documents in order to determine the adequacy of the treatment of endangered species issues and to make project-specific recommendations for their conservation.

3.2.3 DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT
When species are listed as threatened or endangered, the USFWS often designates areas of “critical habitat” as defined by section 3(5)(A) of the ESA. Critical habitat is a term defined in the ESA as a specific geographic area that contains features essenti al for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection. Critical habitat is a tool that supports the continued conservation of imperiled species by guiding cooperation with the federal governmen t.

Designations only affect federal agency actions or federally funded or permitted activities. Critical habitat does not prevent activities that occur within the designated area. Only activities that involve a federal permit, license, or funding and are likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat will be affected.

City of Visalia November 1, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Three: Impacts and Mitigation

www.provostandpritchard.com 3-4

3.2.4 MIGRATORY BIRDS
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA: 16 USC 703 -712) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in any bird species covered in one of four international conventions to which the United States is a party, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. The name of the act is misleading, as it covers almost all bird’s native to the United States, even those that are non -migratory. The MBTA encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. Additionally, Califor nia Fish and Game Code makes it unlawful to take or possess any non-game birds covered by the MBTA (Section 3513), as well as any other native non-game birds (Section 3800).

3.2.5 BIRDS OF PREY
Birds of prey are protected in California under provisions of California Fish and Game Code (Section 3503.5), which states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes (hawks and eagles) or Strigiformes (owls), as well as their nests and eggs. The bald eagle and golden eagle are afforded additional protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668), which makes it unlawful to kill birds or their eggs, or take feathers or nests, without a permit is sued by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior.

3.2.6 NESTING BIRDS
In California, protection is afforded to the nests and eggs of all birds. California Fish and Game Code (Section 3503) states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird except as otherwise provided by this cod e or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Breeding -season disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered a form of “take” by the CDFW.

3.2.7 WETLANDS AND OTHER “JURISDICTIONAL WATERS”
The definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) often changes from one presidential administration to the next and can also be affected by the outcomes of court cases involving federal jurisdiction of waters. The current definition (i.e. “Conformin g Rule”) was adopted under the Biden Administration in early 2023 and was subsequently revised in September 2023 to incorporate the U.S.

Supreme Court’s May 25, 2023, decision in the case of Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The Conforming Rule has adopted much of the same WOTUS designations as the pre -2015 rules but has incorporated the most recent science and court case rulings. The extent of jurisdiction has been defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) but is also subject to inte rpretation by the federal courts.

Jurisdictional waters generally include the following categories:

1) Traditional Navigable Waters, the territorial seas, or interstate waters (not including interstate wetlands);
2) Impoundments of waters of the United States;
3) Tributaries of:
a. Traditional Navigable Waters, territorial seas, or interstate waters (not including interstate wetlands); or
b. Impoundments of water of the United States when the tributaries meet the relatively permanent standard.
4) Wetlands:
a. Adjacent to Traditional Navigable Waters, the territorial seas, or interstate waters; b. Adjacent to and with a continuous surface connection to relatively permanent impoundments of waters of the United States
c. Adjacent to and with a continuous surface connection to relatively permanent jurisdictional tributaries.

City of Visalia November 1, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Three: Impacts and Mitigation

www.provostandpritchard.com 3-5
5) Intrastate lakes and ponds not identified in items 1 through 4 of this section that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water with a continuous surface connection to the waters identified in items 1 or 3 above.

Exclusions under the new definition include the following:

1) Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons, designed to meet the requirements of the CWA;
2) Prior converted cropland designated by the Secretary of Agriculture. The exclusion would cease upon a change of use, which means that the area is no longer available for the production of agricultural commodities. Notwithstanding the determination of an ar ea's status as prior converted cropland by any other Federal agency, for the purposes of the CWA, the final authority regarding CWA jurisdiction remains with USEPA; 3) Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only dry land and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water;
4) Artificially irrigated areas that would revert to dry land if the irrigation ceased; 5) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing;
6) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons; 7) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States; and
8) Swales and erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes) characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow.

The Conforming Rule has incorporated the best available science, relevant supreme court cases, public comment, technical expertise, and experience gained from more than 45 years of implementing the pre - 2015 “waters of the United States” framework to inform jurisdictional limits. One significant court case involves the U.S. Supreme Court in its 2001 Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC) decision. It was determined that channels and wetlands isolated from other jurisdictional waters cannot be considered jurisdictional on the basis of their use, hypothetic al or observed, by migratory birds.

Similarly, in its 2006 consolidated Carabell/Rapanos decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a significant nexus between a wetland and other navigable waters must exist for the wetland itself to be considered a jurisdictional water. The Supreme Court heard Sackett v. United States EPA in May 2023, to determine governing standards of a significant nexus between waters of the United States and adjacent wetlands. The court decided that adjacent wetlands would be protected under the CWA only if it maintained a continuous surface water connection with a federal water body. This decision has limited protection for networks of wetlands connected to navigable waters through subsurface flow. The final decision was enacted in September 2023.

The USACE regulates the filling or grading of waters of the United States. under the authority of Section 404 of the CWA. The extent of jurisdiction within drainage channels is defined by “ordinary high -water marks” on opposing channel banks. All activitie s that involve the discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the United States are subject to the permit requirements of the USACE. Such permits are typically City of Visalia November 1, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Three: Impacts and Mitigation

www.provostandpritchard.com 3-6
issued on the condition that the applicant agrees to provide mitigation that results in no net loss of wetland functions or values. No permit can be issued until the RWQCB issues a Section 401 Water Quality Certification (or waiver of such certification) v erifying that the proposed activity will meet state water quality standards.

Under the Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969, the SWRCB has regulatory authority to protect the water quality of all surface water and groundwater in California (“waters of the state”). Nine RWQCBs oversee water quality at the local and regio nal level. The RWQCB for a given region regulates discharges of fill or pollutants into waters of the state through the issuance of various permits and orders.

Discharges into Waters of the State that are also WOTUS require a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB as a prerequisite to obtaining certain federal permits, such as a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit. Discharges into all Waters of the State, even those that are not also WOTUS, require waste discharge requirements (WDRs), or waivers of WDRs, from the RWQCB. The RWQCB also administers the Construction Storm Water Program and the federal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Projects that disturb one acre or more of soil must obtain a Construction General Permit under the Construction Storm Water Program. A prerequisite for this permit is the development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer. Projects that discharge wastewater, storm water, or other pollutants into a WOTUS may require an NPDES permit.

CDFW has jurisdiction over the bed and bank of natural drainages and lakes according to provisions of Section 1601 and 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. Activities that may substantially modify such waters through the diversion or obstruction of t heir natural flow, change or use any material from their bed or bank, or deposits debris within them require a notification of a Lake or Streambed Alteration. If CDFW determines that the activity may adversely affect fish and wildlife resources, a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement will be prepared. Such an agreement typically stipulates that certain avoidance and minimization measures will be implemented to protect the habitat values of the lake or drainage in question and the plant, fish, and wildlife species that may be present within these resources.

3.3 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT PROJECT-RELATED IMPACTS AND

MITIGATION
Species protected by California Fish and Game Code, CDFW, USFWS, CEQA, or NEPA that have the potential to be impacted by project activities include American badger, burrowing owl, pallid bat, loggerhead strike San Joaquin kit fox, western mastiff bat, and Swainson’s hawk. Corresponding mitigation measures can be found below.

3.3.1 GENERAL PROJECT-RELATED IMPACTS
The 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 the following measures will help reduce potential impacts to these resources to a less than significant level under CEQA and NEPA and will help with complying with state and federal laws protecting these resources:

Mitigation Measure BIO -1a ( 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 spe cies and suitable habitats, a description of the regulatory status City of Visalia November 1, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Three: Impacts and Mitigation

www.provostandpritchard.com 3-7
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 summarizi ng 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.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1b (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.

3.3.2 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.

Implementation of the following measures 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.

City of Visalia November 1, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Three: Impacts and Mitigation

www.provostandpritchard.com 3-8
Mitigation Measure BIO-2a (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.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2b (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.

Mitigation Measure BIO -2c ( 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.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2d (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.

3.3.3 PROJECT-RELATED MORTALITY AND/OR DISTURBANCE TO BURROWING OWL The Project area contains suitable nesting and foraging habitat for burrowing owls. 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 project site 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 the following measures 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.

Mitigation Measure BIO -3a ( 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 th e proposed work area and surrounding lands up to 500 feet. If no BUOW individu als or active burrows are observed, no further mitigation is City of Visalia November 1, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Three: Impacts and Mitigation

www.provostandpritchard.com 3-9
required. If construction is hauled for (7) consecutive days another pre -activity survey shall be completed.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3b (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 main tained until the biologist has determined that the nestlings have fledged and all BUOW have left the Project area.

Mitigation Measure BIO -3c (Passive Relocation): 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.

3.3.4 PROJECT-RELATED MORTALITY AND/OR DISTURBANCE OF MATERNITY ROOSTING

BATS AND SPECIAL STATUS BATS
The oak trees and bridges within or 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 pat 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 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 the following measures will reduce potential impacts to maternity roosting bats and roosting special status bats to a less than significant level under CEQA.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3a (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 potential suitable structures (i.e., oak trees and bridges) within and adjacent to each APE, where accessible.

City of Visalia November 1, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Three: Impacts and Mitigation

www.provostandpritchard.com 3-10
Mitigation Measure BIO-3b (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.

Mitigation Measure BIO -3c (ITP and 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 relocation 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).

3.3.5 PROJECT-RELATED MORTALITY AND/OR DISTURBANCE TO SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX The project site contains suitable denning and foraging habitat for San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF). SJKF denning within the project site during construction have the potential to be injured or killed by project -related activities. Projects that result in the m ortality 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 site may remove some potential foraging habitat for SJKF, there is abundant foraging ha bitat 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 SJKF foraging habitat.

Implementation of the following measures 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.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4a (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.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4b (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 m aintained 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).

Mitigation Measure BIO-4c (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 esc ape City of Visalia November 1, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Three: Impacts and Mitigation

www.provostandpritchard.com 3-11
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-1a).

3.3.6 PROJECT-RELATED MORTALITY AND/OR DISTURBANCE TO AMERICAN BADGER The project site contains grassland habitat that could potentially be used by American badger. American badgers denning within the project site during construction have the potential to be injured or killed by project-related activities. Projects that resu lt in the mortality of individuals would be considered a potentially significant impact under CEQA and NEPA.

Implementation of the following measures 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:

Mitigation Measure BIO -5a ( 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.

Mitigation Measure BIO-5b (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.

Mitigation Measure BIO-5c (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.

Mitigation Measure BIO-5d (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 lea ves 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.

3.4 SECTION 7 DETERMINATIONS
In addition to the occurrence analysis performed in Table 1and Table 2 of this document, Table 3 summarizes project effect determinations for federally -listed species found on the CNDDB list generated on May 30, 2024, and the USFWS IPaC list generated on May 30, 2024 (see Appendix B and Appendix C, respectively), in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

Table 3: Section 7 Determinations
Species Determination Rationale for Determination
Blunt-nosed leopard lizard
(Gambelia sila) No effect Habitat absent. APE is outside of the known distribution range of this species.

City of Visalia November 1, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Three: Impacts and Mitigation

www.provostandpritchard.com 3-12
Species Determination Rationale for Determination
Buena Vista Lake ornate shrew
(Sorex ornatus relictus) No effect
Habitat absent. Habitat required by this species
for burrowing and foraging are absent from the
APE.

California condor
(Gymnogyps californianus) No effect
Habitat absent. Habitats required by this species
for nesting and foraging are absent from the
APE.

California jewelflower
(Caulanthus californicus) No effect Habitat absent. Habitats and soils required by this species are absent from the APE.

California tiger salamander
(Ambystoma californiense) No effect Habitat absent. Breeding habitat for this species is missing from the APE.

Greene’s tuctoria
(Tuctoria greenei) No effect Habitat absent. The required soil and habitat for this species were missing from the APE.

Hoover’s spurge
(Euphorbia hooveri) No effect Habitat absent. The required soil and habitat for this species were missing from the APE.

Lassics lupine
(Lupinus constancei) No effect Habitat absent. The APE is o utside the species range.

San Joaquin adobe sunburst
(Pseudobahia peirsonii) No effect Habitat absent. The required soil and habitat for this species were missing from the APE.

San Joaquin kit fox
(Vulpes macrotis mutica)
May effect, but
not likely to
adversely
affect
Habitat absent. Some potential denning habitat
and foraging sites were observed within the APE.

Plus, California ground squirrels and their
burrows were observed within the APE providing
denning and a prey base. Implementation of
BIO-5a, BIO-5b, BIO-5c will avoid and minimize
effects to this species.

San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass
(Orcuttia inaequalis) No effect Habitat absent. The required soil and habitat for this species were missing from the APE.

Tipton kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys nitratoides
nitratoides)
No effect Habitat absent. Habitats required by this species are absent from the APE.

Valley elderberry longhorn
beetle
(Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus)
No effect Habitat absent. No valley elderberry shrubs were observed in the APE.

Vernal pool fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi) No effect Habitat absent. Vernal pool habitat was absent within the APE.

Vernal pool tadpole shrimp
(Lepidurus packardi) No effect Habitat absent. Vernal pool habitat was absent within the APE.

Western yellow-billed cuckoo
(Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis)
No effect Habitat absent. APE is out of 0000 the species range.

City of Visalia November 1, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Three: Impacts and Mitigation

www.provostandpritchard.com 3-13

3.5 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT PROJECT-RELATED IMPACTS

3.5.1 PROJECT-RELATED IMPACTS TO SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES ABSENT FROM, OR

UNLIKELY TO OCCUR ON THE APE
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, Earl imart 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 project should have no impact on these 23 special status species through construction mortality, disturbance, or loss of habitat.

Mitigation measures are not warranted.

3.5.2 PROJECT-RELATED IMPACTS TO SPECIAL STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES ABSENT FROM,

OR UNLIKELY TO OCCUR ON THE APE
Of the 23 regionally occurring special status animal species, 1 6 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, v alley 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 project should have no impact on these 16 special status species through construction mortality, disturbance, or loss of habitat.

Mitigation measures are not warranted.

3.5.3 PROJECT-RELATED IMPACTS TO RIPARIAN HABITAT AND NATURAL COMMUNITIES

OF SPECIAL CONCERN
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.

3.5.4 PROJECT-RELATED IMPACTS TO REGULATED WATERS, WETLANDS, AND WATER

QUALITY
Since construction would involve ground disturbance over an area greater than one acre, the project would also 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.

3.5.5 PROJECT-RELATED IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS AND NATIVE

WILDLIFE NURSERY SITES
The APE 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 3a-3c. It is likely other native species would utilize any features of the APE as a wildlife nursery site.

City of Visalia November 1, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Three: Impacts and Mitigation

www.provostandpritchard.com 3-14

Most of the APE 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 project was located in an area regularly disturbed by humans which would discourage dispersal and migration.

3.5.6 PROJECT-RELATED IMPACTS TO CRITICAL HABITAT
Designated critical habitat is absent from the APE and surrounding lands. Therefore, there would be no impact to critical habitat, and mitigation measures are not warranted.

3.5.7 LOCAL POLICIES OR HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANS
The project appears to be consistent with the goals and policies of the Tulare County General Plan. There are no known HCPs or NCCPs in the project vicinity. Mitigation measures are not warranted.

3.5.8 PROJECT-RELATED IMPACT TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) are absent from the project site and surrounding lands, and consultation with the National Marine Fisheries (NMFS) Service would not be required. Query results of the NMFS EHF Mapper can be found in Appendix E at the end of this document. Mitigation measures are not warranted
City of Visalia November 1,
2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Four: References

www.provostandpritchard.com 4-1
4 REFERENCES
n.d. "Califorina Department of Fish and Wildlife ." Lassics Lupine (Lupinus constancei). Accessed 06 20, 2024. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Plants/Endangered/Lupinus-constancei.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2024a. California Natural Diversity Database- RareFind. Accessed June 2024.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2024b. "State and federally listed endangered, threatened, and rare plants of California." Accessed June 2024.
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109390&inline.

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2024. eBird. Accessed June 2024. https://ebird.org/.

Department of Water Resources. 2019. Groundwater Basin Boundary Assessment Tool. Accessed June 2024. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bbat/.
2023. "Fedcenter.gov." Endangered Species Status for Lassics Lupine and Designation of Critical Habitat (Final). 10 5.

Accessed 20 06, 2024. https://www.fedcenter.gov/Articles/index.cfm?id=41445. 2019. "iNaturalist." Monarch (Danaus plexippus). Accessed 06 24, 2024. https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/48662-Danaus-plexippus. iNaturalist. 2024. Observations of Special Status Species. Accessed June 2024. https://www.inaturalist.org/.

State of California Natural Resources Agency Department of Fish and Game. 2012. "Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation." Accessed June 2024.

State Water Resources Control Board. 2021. "State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State." Accessed June 2024.

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.

The California Burrowing Owl Consortium. 1993. "Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines." Accessed June 2024.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2024. Essential Fish Habitat Mapper. Accessed June 2024. https://www.habitat.noaa.gov/apps/efhmapper/?page=page_5. 2012. "Tulare.ca.us." generalplan.co.tulare.ca.us. 08. Accessed 06 20, 2024. https://generalplan.co.tulare.ca.us/documents/GP/001Adopted%20Tulare%20County%20General %20Plan%20Materials/000General%20Plan%202030%20Part%20I%20and%20Part%20II/GENE RAL%20PLAN%202012.pdf.

United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual." Accessed June 2024.

City of Visalia November 1,
2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Four: References

www.provostandpritchard.com 4-2
United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2024. Soil Survey Area.

Accessed June 2024. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/publications/Lists%20of%20Hydric%20Soils%20- %20Query%20by%20Soil%20Survey%20Area%20Map%20Unit%20Rating.html.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2024a. Waters GeoViewer. Accessed June 2024. https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/waters-geoviewer.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2024b. Information on Planning and Consultation. Accessed June 2024. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/.
—. 2024c. National Wetlands Inventory. Accessed June 2024. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html.
—. 1998. "Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California." Accessed June 2024.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. "Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance." Accessed June 2024.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2024d. Environmental Conservation Online System. Accessed June 2024. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/.

University of California, Berkeley. 2024. The Jepson Herbarium. Accessed June 2024. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/.
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-Year- Round.

Appendices

Appendix A: Representative
Photos of the APE

City of Visalia
Cameron Creek Project Appendix A Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group A-1

Photograph 1
Valley oak trees in the rude-
ral portion of the APE.

Photograph 2
Overview of the vegetation
in Cameron Creek.

City of Visalia
Cameron Creek Project Appendix A Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group A-2

Photograph 3
Overview of Cameron Creek
with orchards adjacent to
the creek .

Photograph 4
Overview of pooled water in
Cameron Creek.

City of Visalia
Cameron Creek Project Appendix A Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group A-3

Photograph 5
Overview of the habitat
where the Swainson's hawk
was observed.

Photograph 6.

Agricultural field adjacent
to the APE.

City of Visalia
Cameron Creek Project Appendix A Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group A-4

Photograph 7
A fallow field south of the
Rector Check.

Photograph 8
A water recharge basin ad-
jacent to the APE near the
Measurement Check.

City of Visalia
Cameron Creek Project Appendix A Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group A-5

Photograph 9
Cliff swallow nests under
one of the bridges in Camer-
on Creek north of the Rector
Check.

Photograph 10
Owl nest box near the APE
east of the Measurement
Check .

City of Visalia
Cameron Creek Project Appendix A Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group A-6

Photograph 11
Striped sunk scat observed
near the Rector Check.

Photograph 12
The lower jaw bone of a
canine observed near the
Measurement Check.

City of Visalia
Cameron Creek Project Appendix A Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group A-7

Photograph 12
Active stick nest within the
APE east of the Lovers
Check.

Photograph 14
Overview of an small mam-
mal burrow with a Califor-
nia scrub jay chick carcass.

Appendices

Appendix B: CNDDB 11-QUAD

SPECIES LIST
Species
Element Code
Federal Status
State Status
Global Rank
State Rank
Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Agelaius tricolor
tricolored blackbird
ABPBXB0020
None
Threatened
G1G2
S2
SSC
Ambystoma californiense pop. 1
California tiger salamander - central California DPS
AAAAA01181
Threatened
Threatened
G2G3T3
S3
WL
Andrena macswaini
An andrenid bee
IIHYM35130
None
None
G2
S2
Anniella pulchra
Northern California legless lizard
ARACC01020
None
None
G3
S2S3
SSC
Antrozous pallidus
pallid bat
AMACC10010
None
None
G4
S3
SSC
Ardea herodias
great blue heron
ABNGA04010
None
None
G5
S4
Athene cunicularia
burrowing owl
ABNSB10010
None
None
G4
S2
SSC
Atriplex cordulata var. cordulata
heartscale
PDCHE040B0
None
None
G3T2
S2
1B.2
Atriplex cordulata var. erecticaulis
Earlimart orache
PDCHE042V0
None
None
G3T1
S1
1B.2
Atriplex depressa
brittlescale
PDCHE042L0
None
None
G2
S2
1B.2
Atriplex minuscula
lesser saltscale
PDCHE042M0
None
None
G2
S2
1B.1
Atriplex persistens
vernal pool smallscale
PDCHE042P0
None
None
G2
S2
1B.2
Atriplex subtilis
subtle orache
PDCHE042T0
None
None
G1
S1
1B.2
Bombus crotchii
Crotch's bumble bee
IIHYM24480
None
Candidate
Endangered
G2
S2
Bombus pensylvanicus
American bumble bee
IIHYM24260
None
None
G3G4
S2
Branchinecta lynchi
vernal pool fairy shrimp
ICBRA03030
Threatened
None
G3
S3
Brodiaea insignis
Kaweah brodiaea
PMLIL0C060
None
Endangered
G1
S1
1B.2
Buteo swainsoni
Swainson's hawk
ABNKC19070
None
Threatened
G5
S4
Quad IS (Traver (3611944) OR Monson (3611943) OR Ivanhoe (3611942) OR Woodlake (3611941) OR Goshen (3611934) OR Visalia (3611933) OR Exeter (3611932) OR Rocky Hill (3611931) OR Paige (3611924) OR Tulare (3611923) OR Cairns Corner (3611922) OR Lindsay (3611921))
Query Criteria:

Report Printed on Thursday, May 30, 2024

Page 1 of 3 ends

Visalia City CouncilNovember 18, 2024

Visalia City Council
November 18, 2024