October. 11 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan 2030. Open Space and Conservation Element. October. 12 Ninyo & Moore. 2022. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park. August 2. 2437
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources Draft EIR
3.2-4
Timber Land and Forest Land
Most of the project site is occupied by row crops and is used as almond orchard. The project site does not contain any forest land or timberland as defined by Public Resource Code Section 4526, nor does it contain any timberland zoned Timberland Production as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g).
3.2.4 - Regulatory Framework
Federal
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) maps soils and farmland uses to provide comprehensive information necessary for understanding, managing, conserving, and sustaining the nation’s limited soil resources. In addition to many other natural resource conservation programs, the NRCS manages the Farmland Protection Program, which provides funds to help purchase development rights to keep productive farmland in agricultural uses. Working through existing programs, USDA joins with state, tribal, or local governments to acquire conservation easements or other interests from landowners. The NRCS also classifies soils according to their suitability for agricultural use. The categories of the NRCS Soil Capability Classification System are as follows:
Class I Soils have few limitations that restrict their use.
Class II Soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require moderate conservation practices.
Class III Soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require special conservation practices, or both.
Class IV Soils have very severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require very careful management, or both.
Class V Soils are not likely to erode but have other limitations, impractical to remove, that limit their use.
Class VI Soils have severe limitations that make them generally unsuitable for cultivation.
Class VII Soils have very severe limitations that make them unsuitable for cultivation. 2438
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggins Industrial Project
Draft EIR Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources
3.2-5
Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act
The NRCS oversees the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) (7 United States Code [USC] § 4201 et seq.; see also 7 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 658). The FPPA (a subtitle of the 1981 Farm Bill) is national legislation designed to protect farmland. The FPPA states its purpose is to “minimize the extent to which federal programs contribute to the unnecessary conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses.” The FPPA applies to projects and programs that are sponsored or financed in whole or in part by the federal government. The FPPA does not apply to private construction projects subject to federal permitting and licensing, projects planned and completed without assistance from a federal agency, federal projects related to national defense during a national emergency, or projects proposed on land already committed to urban development. The FPPA spells out requirements to ensure federal programs to the extent practical are compatible with state, local, and private programs and policies to protect farmland and calls for the use of the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) system to aid in analysis. Because the City of Visalia may ultimately seek some federal funding for transportation or other capital improvements, the FPPA is considered in this document.
State
Farmland Classifications
The California Department of Conservation FMMP classifies cultivated agricultural land into four categories, listed below:
• Prime Farmland: Land with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain the long-term production of agricultural crops. These lands have 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 4 years prior to the mapping date.
• Farmland of Statewide Importance: Land similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to hold and store moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the 4 years prior to the mapping date.
• Unique Farmland: Land 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 climactic zones in California. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the 4 years prior to the mapping date. • Farmland of Local Importance: Land of importance in the local agricultural economy, as determined by each County’s Board of Supervisors and a local advisory committee. • Other Land: 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 nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land. 2439
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources Draft EIR
3.2-6
Williamson Act Contract
Williamson Act Contracts are formed between a county or city and a landowner to restrict specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use in exchange for reduced property tax assessments. Private lands within locally designated agricultural preserve areas are also eligible for enrollment under a contract. The minimum term for contracts is 10 years; however, since the contract term automatically renews annually, the actual term may continue indefinitely. Williamson Act Contracts are described in more detail in Section 3.2.4, Regulatory Framework.
California Department of Conservation Classification
The California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection developed the FMMP in 1984 to analyze impacts to California’s agricultural resources. In the FMMP, land ratings are based on a land capability classification system, and land use.
California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act)
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act) enables local governments to enter contracts with private landowners to restrict specific parcels of land to maintain agricultural or related open space use. As an incentive, landowners receive lower property tax assessments based on agricultural or open space land uses, as opposed to real estate value of the land for urban uses.
California Farmland Conservancy Program
The California Farmland Conservancy Program (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 10200 et seq.) supports the voluntary granting of agricultural conservation easements from landowners to qualified nonprofit organizations, such as land trusts, as well as local governments. Conservation easements are voluntarily established restrictions that are permanently attached to property deeds, with the general purpose of retaining land in its natural, open space, agricultural, or other condition while preventing uses that are deemed inconsistent with the specific conservation purposes expressed in the easements. Agricultural conservation easements define conservation purposes that are tied to keeping land available for continued use as farmland. Such farmlands remain in private ownership and the landowner retains all farmland use authority, but the farmland is restricted in its ability to be subdivided or used for nonagricultural purposes, such as urban uses.
Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 The purpose of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Local Agency Formation Commission [LAFCo] Law) is to encourage orderly growth and development which are essential to the social, fiscal, and economic well-being of the State. In enacting LAFCo Law, the Legislature recognized that the logical formation and determination of local agency boundaries is an important factor in promoting orderly development and in balancing that development with sometimes competing state interests of discouraging urban sprawl, preserving open space and prime agricultural lands, and efficiently extending government services (Government Code § 56001). These boundary decisions are made by LAFCo that are situated in each county throughout California (each, an LAFCo).
Among other things, an LAFCo has the power to review and approve, conditionally approve, modify, or disapprove proposals for changes of organization or reorganization, consistent with adopted 2440
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggins Industrial Project
Draft EIR Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources
3.2-7
written policies, procedures, and guidelines (Government Code § 56375(a)(1)). Factors to be considered include, among others, the present and planned land uses including agricultural and open space lands, the present and probable need for public facilities and services, the present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, the existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area, and the present and probable need for public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the existing sphere (See Government Code § 56668).
Pursuant to Government Code Section 56377, in reviewing and approving or disapproving proposals that could reasonably be expected to induce, facilitate, or lead to the conversion of existing open space lands to uses other than open space uses, LAFCo shall consider all of the following policies and priorities:
a) Development or use of land for other than open space uses shall be guided away from existing prime agricultural lands in open space use toward areas containing nonprime agricultural lands, unless that action would not promote the planned, orderly, efficient development of an area.
b) Development of existing vacant or nonprime agricultural lands for urban uses within the existing jurisdiction of a local agency or within the sphere of influence of a local agency should be encouraged before any proposal is approved which would allow for or lead to the development of existing open space lands for non-open space uses which are outside of the existing jurisdiction of the local agency or outside of the existing sphere of influence of the local agency.”
Under LAFCo law, "prime agricultural land" means an area of land, whether a single parcel or contiguous parcels that has not been developed for a use other than an agricultural use and that meets any of the following qualifications:
a) Land that qualifies, if irrigated, for rating as class I or class II in the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service land use capability classification, whether or not land is actually irrigated, provided that irrigation is feasible. b) Land that qualifies for rating 80 through 100 Storie Index Rating. c) Land that supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and that has an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture in the National Range and Pasture Handbook, Revision 1, December 2003.
d) Land planted with fruit or nut-bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crops that have a nonbearing period of less than 5 years and that will return during the commercial bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production not less than four hundred dollars ($400) per acre.
e) Land that has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant products an annual gross value of not less than four hundred dollars ($400) per acre for 3 of the previous 5 calendar years.
2441
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources Draft EIR
3.2-8
Local
Tulare County General Plan Environmental Resource Element The Tulare County General Plan Environmental Resource Element includes measures to preserve agriculture, as well as an agricultural resources section. The purpose of the agricultural resources section is to evaluate the County’s farmland preservation programs and Williamson Act policies in order to preserve agricultural resources, as they are a vital component of the County’s economy. The policies included in the agriculture section of the General Plan aim to achieve the following:
• Promote the long-term preservation of productive and potentially productive agricultural lands and to accommodate agricultural-support services and agriculturally related activities that support the viability of agriculture and further the County’s economic development goals. • Support increased viability of agriculture production and promote high-value, employmentintensive, and diverse agricultural production and processing in Tulare County; and • Support the reasonable development and economic viability of animal confinement facilities.13
Tulare County Code Agricultural Land Policies
Chapter 29 of the Tulare County Code contains the County’s Agricultural Land Policies. As the value of agricultural land and production is an important asset to Tulare County, it is the County’s responsibility to prevent the loss of agricultural resources. Article 3 of this code clearly defines the “Right to Farm” and its purposes: Where nonagricultural land uses, especially residential development, extend into agricultural areas, or locate in the vicinity of agricultural land, agricultural operations may be the subject of nuisance complaints.14 City of Visalia General Plan
Chapter 2: Land Use Element
LU-P-19 Ensure that growth occurs in a compact and concentric fashion by implementing the General Plan’s phased growth strategy. The General Plan Land Use Diagram establishes three growth rings to accommodate estimated City population for the years 2020 and 2030. The Urban Development Boundary I (UDB I) shares its boundaries with the 2012 city limits. The Urban Development Boundary II (UDB II) defines the urbanizable area within which a full range of urban services will need to be extended in the first phase of anticipated growth with a target buildout population of 178,000. The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) defines full buildout of the General Plan with a target buildout population of 210,000. Each growth ring enables the City to expand in all four quadrants, reinforcing a concentric growth pattern.
13 Tulare County. 2012. 2030 Update Tulare County General Plan. August. 14 Tulare County. 2022. Tulare County Code. January 11. 2442
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggins Industrial Project
Draft EIR Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources
3.2-9
LU-P-20 Allow annexation and development of residential, commercial, and industrial land to occur within the “Tier I” Urban Development Boundary (UDB) at any time, consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram.
LU-O-12 Provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land uses.
LU-P-32 Continue to maintain a 20-acre minimum for parcel map proposals in areas designated for Agriculture to encourage viable agricultural operations in the Planning Area.
LU-P-34 Work with Tulare County and other state and regional agencies, neighboring cities, and private land trust entities to prevent urban development of agricultural land outside of the current growth boundaries and to promote the use of agricultural preserves, where they will promote orderly development and preservation of farming operations within Tulare County. Conduct additional investigation of the efficacy of agricultural conservation easements by engaging local, regional, and state agencies and stakeholders in order to further analyze their ongoing efforts and programs that attempt to mitigate impacts from the conversion of agricultural lands through the use of agricultural conservation easements. Support regional efforts to prevent urban development of agricultural lands, specifically at the county level.
Tulare County’s General Plan 2030 Update Policy contains two policies (AG-1.6 Conservation Easements and AG-1.18 Farmland Trust and Funding Sources) that discuss establishing and implementing an Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP). The City supports the implementation of these measures by the County, in which the City may then participate. Such a regional program could include a fee to assist and support agricultural uses, and would be most feasibly and strategically developed on a countywide or other regional basis.
In addition to supporting regional efforts to prevent urban development of agricultural lands, the City shall create and adopt a mitigation program to address conversion of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance in Tiers II and III. This mitigation program shall require a 1:1 ratio of agricultural land preserved to agricultural land converted and require agricultural land preserved to be equivalent to agricultural land converted. The mitigation program shall also require that the agricultural land preserved demonstrate adequate water supply and agricultural zoning, and shall be located outside the City UDB, and within the southern San Joaquin Valley. The mitigation program shall, to the extent feasible and practicable, be integrated with the agricultural easement programs adopted by the County and nearby cities. The City’s mitigation program shall allow mitigation to be provided by purchase of conservation easement or payment of fee, but shall indicate a preference for purchase of easements. The mitigation program shall require easements to be held by a qualifying entity, such as a local land trust, and require the submission of annual monitoring reports to the City. The mitigation program shall specifically allow exemptions for conversion of agricultural lands in Tier I, or 2443
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources Draft EIR
3.2-10
conversion of agricultural lands for agricultural processing uses, agricultural buffers, public facilities, and roadways.
LU-P-35 Adopt the County’s Right to Farm ordinance to support continued agricultural operations at appropriate locations within the city limits, with no new provisions.
This ordinance should not limit urban development contemplated by the General Plan.
Pursuant to LU-P-34, the City, together with a consultant, began working in September 2022 on the development of an Agriculture Preservation Ordinance (APO) in order to implement the contemplated Agricultural Mitigation Program. This effort was preceded in late 2020/early 2021 by the development of a Feasibility Study that identifies an APO's impact on the cost of development, potential benefits and challenges, and how the changes in state law would impact APO. After public hearings and community input, the City Council passed and adopted the APO on May 15, 2023.15
3.2.5 - Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Significance Criteria
The City, as the lead agency, has elected in its discretion to utilize the criteria in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G, to determine whether impacts to agriculture and forestry resources are significant environmental effects. Would the proposed project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in PRC § 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by PRC § 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code § 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 nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Approach to Analysis
Potential impacts on agricultural resources are based on a review of FMMP and Williamson Act land use maps, site plans, and applicable local and State plans and policies. 15 City of Visalia. Agriculture Preservation Ordinance. Website:
https://www.visalia.city/depts/community_development/planning/agricultural_preservation_ordinance.asp. Accessed March 23, 2024.
2444
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggins Industrial Project
Draft EIR Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources
3.2-11
Impact Evaluation
Convert Farmland to Nonagricultural Use
Impact AG-1: Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
The project site contains approximately 284 acres of Prime Farmland pursuant to the current FMMP mapping (Exhibit 3.2-1).16 The project site is in current agricultural cultivation that would cease with the development of the proposed project.
The proposed project is consistent with the land use designation and intensity of development established by the General Plan; thus, conversion to industrial use was envisioned as part of buildout under the General Plan and was evaluated and disclosed in the General Plan EIR. According to the General Plan EIR, buildout of the General Plan would result in the conversion of 14,265 acres (or 33 percent) of the existing Important Farmland within the Planning Area to urban uses, which may include park and open space designations. Of this land, 12,490 acres is classified as Prime Farmland, representing 37 percent of the existing Prime Farmland within the Planning Area. The General Plan EIR determined that, aside from preventing development altogether, conversion of farmland could not be directly mitigated to a less than significant level.
General Plan policies identified in Impact 3.5-1 of the General Plan EIR assist in reducing the severity of impacts related to the loss of Prime Farmland while still supporting the General Plan’s goals of accommodating a certain amount of growth within the Planning Area. In particular, LU-P-34 requires the City to create and adopt a mitigation program to address the conversion of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance in Tiers II and III of the UDB. This mitigation program for Tiers II and III requires a 1:1 ratio of agricultural land preserved to agricultural land converted and also requires agricultural land to be preserved equivalent to agricultural land converted. As noted above, the City is in the process of adopting an Agricultural Preservation Ordinance pursuant to Policy LU-P34 but has not done so as of the writing of this Draft EIR. Moreover, as noted above, Policy LU-P-34 explicitly exempts conversions of agricultural lands located in UDB Tier I, such as the project site, from the mitigation program. Therefore, the mitigation program required in LU-P-34 is not applicable to the proposed project. Although implementation of policies in the General Plan would reduce some agricultural impacts for General Plan buildout, over 14,000 acres of the existing Important Farmland would be lost. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that conversion of farmland from General Plan buildout would be significant and unavoidable.
Although previously addressed in the certified General Plan EIR, for purposes of a comprehensive and conservative analysis, this Draft EIR acknowledges that the proposed project would result in the loss of Prime Farmland as a result of the construction of the proposed urban uses. Furthermore, despite the fact this conversion was already evaluated and disclosed as part of the General Plan EIR, this Draft EIR conservatively concludes that the proposed project would result in significant and 16 California Department of Conservation. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder (FMMP). Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/: Accessed September 16, 2022. 2445
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources Draft EIR
3.2-12
unavoidable impacts related to the conversion of Farmland. Because, however, Policy LU-P-34 does not apply to Tier 1 lands and further because there is no adopted Agricultural Preservation Ordinance, there is no feasible method to mitigate the loss of this Important Farmland. However, as noted above, the project site has long been identified for conversion to urban uses. This reflects the City’s overall land use strategy that ensure the areas identified for growth are contiguous to existing development and to each other, and policies clearly require sequencing of growth so that minimal fragmentation of agricultural land will occur. The General Plan’s three-tier growth management system reinforces Visalia’s compact form, minimizing the interface between farming and urban uses.
The General Plan establishes greenbelt buffers along the urban edge in some places, while providing requirements for buffering and screening of private development elsewhere. Furthermore, the City’s urbanized land use vision for the project site vicinity is evident in that the adjacent surrounding uses consist of industrial uses such as an Amazon distribution center and United Parcel Service (UPS) distribution hub. However, as discussed above, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
No feasible mitigation measures available.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Significant and unavoidable impact.
Conflict with Existing Zoning or Williamson Act Contract Impact AG-2: Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract?
Agricultural Zoning
The project site is zoned AE-40 under the County’s Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 2, Project Description, Exhibit 2-6).17 The AE-40 Zone is intended for agricultural uses. However, the applicant is requesting pre-zoning to Industrial and Light Industrial, which would take effect upon annexation into the City.
This zoning district would be consistent with the existing Industrial and Light Industrial General Plan designations under the General Plan that currently apply to the project site. Because the pre-zoning allows for industrial and light industrial use, the change in zoning from AE-40 under the County’s Zoning Ordinance to the City’s Industrial and Light Industrial zones would ensure there is no conflict with existing zoning. Impacts would be less than significant.
Williamson Act Contracts
All three parcels comprising the project site are subject to a Williamson Act Contract. 18 Pursuant to
the applicable provisions of the California Government Code, the landowner initiated a Notice of 17 Tulare County Public Parcel Zoning Lookup. Website:
https://tularecounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=e7d7da648dab43e1a9eb0233889b7c32. Accessed August 17, 2022. 18 See Chapter 2 Project Description for clarification regarding the project site area and the area subject to the Williamson Act contract.
2446
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggins Industrial Project
Draft EIR Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources
3.2-13
Nonrenewal in July 2021 for the contract, beginning a 9-year process to formally expire the contract.
Based on the date of the Notice of Nonrenewal, the contract would have expired in December 2030.
However, in order for the project to be developed, State law provides a detailed procedure to cancel a Williamson Act Contract. The landowner filed a cancellation petition with Tulare County in November 2022, which was approved by the Board of Supervisors pursuant to Section 51282(a). The lead agency notes that a Williamson Act Contract cancellation is an option under the limited circumstances and conditions set forth in Government Code Section 51280, et seq. In such cases, landowners may petition a board/council for Williamson Act Contract cancellation. The board/council may grant tentative cancellation only if it makes the required statutory findings.
To determine that the cancellation is valid, the board/council must find the following:
1. The cancellation is for land on which a Notice of Non-Renewal has been filed.
2. Cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use.
3. Cancellation is for an alternate use that is consistent with the adopted General Plan.
4. Cancellation will not result in discontinuous patterns of urban development.
5. That there is no proximate non-contracted land which is both available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed the contracted land be put or that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate non-contracted land.
Because the Board of Supervisors determined these findings can be, and were, made and thus approved the cancellation on November 29, 2022 (see Appendix G2), contingent upon payment of cancellation fees and satisfaction of the other identified conditions, there would be no conflict with the existing agricultural zoning or adjacent Williamson Act contracted land. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Conflict with Existing Forest Land Zoning
Impact AG-3: Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
The project site does not contain any forest land or timberland, as defined by Public Resource Code Section 4526, nor does it contain any timberland zoned Timberland Production, as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g). Additionally, according to the CDFW, there are no private timberlands or public lands with forests within the project site. 19 This condition precludes the
19 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). California Forests and Timberlands. Website:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109917&inline. Accessed October 12, 2022. 2447
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources Draft EIR
3.2-14
possibility of the proposed project conflicting with forest zoning of forest land or timberland. No impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance
No impact.
Conversion of Forest Land to Non-Forest Use
Impact AG-4: Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
As explained more fully above, the project site is adjacent to urbanized, industrial land uses (with these surrounding uses also not containing any forest land) and does not contain any forest land.
This condition precludes the possibility of the proposed project converting forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance
No impact.
Other Changes to Convert Farmland to Nonagricultural Use or Forest Land to Non-forest Use Impact AG-5: Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Tulare County classifies the areas north, east, and south of the project site (outside City limits) as within the AG-20 and AG-40, Exclusive Agricultural zone districts. 20 The land to the west and some of
the land to the south of the project site is within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) and is designated Industrial and Light Industrial by the General Plan.
Chief causes for the loss of Farmland include development of low-density rural residences and ecological restoration projects, such as wetlands and wildlife habitat. The proposed project does not fall in either of these categories. It would be speculative to determine that the project would promote growth and result in the conversion of adjacent lands to non-agricultural uses.
Additionally, these lands would need to be annexed into the City of Visalia and would require the completion of CEQA analysis prior to the discretionary approval of any development. However, the proposed project does not include the annexation of these lands and, therefore, would not result in 20 Tulare County Public Parcel Zoning Lookup. Website:
https://tularecounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=e7d7da648dab43e1a9eb0233889b7c32. Accessed August 17, 2022.
2448
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggins Industrial Project
Draft EIR Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources
3.2-15
a change in the existing environment that could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use. Though there is a possibility this land would be converted to nonagricultural uses in the future, the proposed project would not be the cause of that conversion.
With respect to the conversion of forest land, as explained more fully above, the project site is adjacent to urbanized, industrial land uses; these adjacent lands do not contain any forest land. As explained above, neither the project site nor the Planning Area contains timberlands or forestlands.21 This condition precludes the possibility of the proposed project converting forest land to non-forest use.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
3.2.6 - Cumulative Impacts
Given the nature of agricultural resources, the geographic scope of this cumulative analysis includes past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects on lands within the City’s Planning Area. As shown in Exhibit 3-1, the relevant Cumulative Projects 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 are industrial uses; the relevant Cumulative Projects 5 and 8 are residential projects; and the relevant Cumulative Project 7 is a Mixed-Use Development Specific Plan. The General Plan EIR addressed this issue at length in considering the impacts associated with its planned growth, including that being pursued by these relevant other projects, and already disclosed impacts to agricultural resources due to conversion as a significant and unavoidable impact.
The General Plan identifies the need for the conversion of agricultural land to urban development.
The City has set aside three-tiered areas planned for development that contain land designated as Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance. The proposed project is within Tier 1, which has been deemed as land to be converted from agricultural land to urban development. Much of the Tier I area that is identified for development of various Cumulative Developments consists of Important Farmland that would be converted to nonagricultural uses with implementation of same, consistent with development already envisioned by the General Plan Land Use Element. 22 Development within Tier II and III of the UDB that would convert Prime Farmland is subject to the 1:1 ratio of agricultural land preservation elsewhere outside of the City’s UDB. Cumulative Projects 1–5 and Cumulative Project 8 are in Tier I of the UDB, and Cumulative Projects 6 and 7 are in Tier II.
According to the General Plan, all of the foregoing development is planned growth occurring within areas designated or otherwise planned for industrial and residential development. The certified General Plan EIR specifies that, while the growth of the City will incur unavoidable losses of farmland, the severity of the losses can be minimized to the extent feasible through adherence to the compact, concentric development plan outlined in the General Plan and long contemplated for 21 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Forest Service, National Forest Type Groups. No date. Website:
https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/rastergateway/forest_type/index.php. Accessed October 7, 2022. 22 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan 2030. Land Use Element. October. 2449
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources Draft EIR
3.2-16
development by both the City and County.
23 Development in this fashion will help to maintain the maximum amount of contiguous Important Farmland, avoiding “patchwork” easements and dispersed development in a manner that cannot be guaranteed through the requirement of purchasing agricultural easements.24
All cumulative development would be required to comply with the applicable provisions of the General Plan, implement application mitigation required by the General Plan EIR, and adhere to other applicable laws and regulations addressing loss of agricultural resources (i.e., Agricultural Preservation Ordinance when adopted and Right to Farm provisions when adopted). However, even with adherence to the foregoing and General Plan’s overall land use vision and strategy, development of the Cumulative Projects would result in a cumulatively significant and unavoidable impact.
The development of the proposed project would further contribute to this already significant cumulative impact, due to the loss of approximately 284 acres of Prime Farmland, which has been identified as an individual significant and unavoidable impact due to lack of feasible mitigation.
Moreover, the proposed project’s contribution to this significant cumulative effect to agricultural resources would be considered cumulatively considerable.
Impacts associated with the Williamson Act Contract were less than significant; however, the proposed project would result in the loss of Williamson Act lands, which is cumulatively considerable. The proposed project’s contribution to this significant cumulative effect to Williamson Act lands would be considered cumulatively considerable.
Forestry Resources
Similar to the relevant geographic scope for agricultural resources described above, the geographic scope of this cumulative analysis with respect to forestry resources is lands within the City of Visalia Planning Area. As mapped by the USDA Forest Service, there are no National Forest lands within the City or the City’s Planning Area.
25 The project site and the other sites upon which the Cumulative Developments would be developed do not contain forest land or timberland, as defined by Public Resource Code Section 4526, nor do they contain any timberland zoned Timberland Production, as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g). Therefore, the Cumulative Projects would not conflict with forest zoning or converting forest land to non-forest use, and thus there would be no significant cumulative impact in this regard. Furthermore, because there is no forest land or timberland on the project site, there are no cumulative impacts to forestry resources.
Likewise, the proposed project, in conjunction with the cumulative projects, would not conflict with forest zoning or converting forest land to non-forest use since there is no forest land or timberland on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to this less than significant impact would not be cumulatively considerable, and the proposed project would not have a cumulatively 23 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan EIR 2030. Agricultural Resources. October. 24 Ibid. 25 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Forest Service, National Forest Type Groups. No date. Website:
https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/rastergateway/forest_type/index.php. Accessed October 7, 2022. 2450
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggins Industrial Project
Draft EIR Agricultural Resources and Forestry Resources
3.2-17
considerable contribution to the already less than significant cumulative impact to forestry resources.
Level of Cumulative Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
No feasible mitigation measures are available.
Level of Cumulative Significance After Mitigation
Significant and unavoidable with respect to the loss of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.
2451
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2452
41150039•11/2022|3.2-1_im portant_farm land.m xd
Ex h ibit3.2-1
Im portantFarm landMap
Source:Bing AerialIm ag ery.CADepartm entof Conservation TulareCounty2018.
CITYOFVISALIA
SHIR KANDR IGGININDUSTR IALPR OJECT
ENVIR ONMENTALIMPACTR EPOR T
I 1,500 750 0 1,500
Feet
Legend
Project Site 284.58 acres
Important Farmland Categories
Cl - Confined Animal Agriculture 0.31 acre
P - Prime Farmland 284.27
2453
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2454
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality
3.3-1
3.3 - Air Quality
This section describes existing air quality conditions regionally and locally as well as the relevant regulatory framework. This section also evaluates the possible impacts related to air quality that could result from implementation of the project. Information included in this section is based on the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Analysis Report prepared for the proposed project (Appendix B). The project-specific air quality modeling results included in this report utilized California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2020.4.0 and the American Meteorological Society/United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regulatory Model (AERMOD), Version 22112, which is approved by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District) for air dispersion assessments. Complete modeling output files are provided in Appendix B.
One public comment was received during the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) scoping period related to air quality.
• Valley Air District dated September 28, 2022, related to project construction and operational emissions, Health Risk Assessment (HRA) criteria, and recommended air pollutant reduction strategies.
3.3.1 - Environmental Setting
Topography
The topography of a region is important for air quality because mountains can block airflow that would help disperse pollutants and can channel air from upwind areas that transports pollutants to downwind areas. The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (Air Basin) is generally shaped like a bowl. It is open in the north and is surrounded by mountain ranges on all other sides. The Sierra Nevada mountains are along the eastern boundary (8,000 to 14,000 feet in elevation), the Coast Ranges are along the western boundary (3,000 feet in elevation), and the Tehachapi Mountains are along the southern boundary (6,000 to 8,000 feet in elevation).
Climate
Climate is important for air quality because of differences in the atmosphere’s ability to trap pollutants close to the ground, creating adverse air quality, or to rapidly disperse pollutants over a wide area, preventing high concentrations from accumulating under different climatic conditions.
The Air Basin has an “inland Mediterranean” climate and is characterized by long, hot, dry summers and short, foggy winters. Sunlight can be a catalyst in the formation of some air pollutants (such as ozone); the Air Basin averages over 260 sunny days per year.
Dominant airflows provide the driving mechanism for transport and dispersion of air pollution. The mountains surrounding the Air Basin form natural horizontal barriers to the dispersion of air contaminants. The wind generally flows south-southeast through the valley and Tulare County, through the Tehachapi Pass and into the Mojave Desert Air Basin portion of Kern County. As the wind moves through the Air Basin, it mixes with the air pollution generated locally, generally transporting air pollutants from the north to the south in the summer and in a reverse flow in the winter.
2455
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-2
Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors are land uses or people considered to be more sensitive than others to air pollutants. The reasons for greater than average sensitivity include pre-existing health problems, proximity to emissions sources, or duration of exposure to air pollutants. Residences, schools, hospitals, convalescent homes, and parks are considered to be relatively sensitive to poor air quality because children, elderly people, and the infirm are more susceptible to respiratory distress and other air quality-related health problems than the general public. Residential areas are considered sensitive to poor air quality because people usually stay home for extended periods of time, with associated greater exposure to ambient air quality. Recreational uses are also considered sensitive due to greater exposure to ambient air quality conditions because vigorous exercise associated with recreation places a high demand on the human respiratory system.
The nearest sensitive receptors to the site include the following:
• Single-family residential homes located directly to the southeast across the intersection of Riggin Avenue and Shirk Street, with the closest home approximately 160 feet to the southwest.
• Denton Elementary School located approximately 2,200 feet to the southwest. The City of Visalia General Plan Land Use Element1 designates an area as Multi-Family Residential approximately 2,700 feet to the east of the project site, which could result in new sensitive receptors.
• The Carleton Acres Specific Plan area located to the east of the North Shirk Avenue and West Riggin Avenue intersection, which could result in up to 3,368 residential units to the east of the project site.
Air Pollutant Types, Sources, and Effects
Criteria Air Pollutants
Concentrations of criteria air pollutants are used as indicators of air quality conditions. Air pollutants are termed criteria air pollutants if they are regulated by developing specific public health- and welfare-based criteria as the basis for setting permissible levels. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), criteria air pollutants are ozone, particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), lead, and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Table 3.3-1 provides a summary of the types, sources, and effects of criteria air pollutants.
Toxic Air Contaminants
A TAC is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air; however, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at low concentrations. There are no ambient air quality standards for TAC emissions.
TACs are regulated in terms of health risks to individuals and populations exposed to the pollutants.
The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments significantly expanded the EPA’s authority to regulate 1 City of Visalia. General Plan Land Use Interactive Map. Website:
https://www.visalia.city/depts/community_development/planning/gp.asp. Accessed June 1, 2023. 2456
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality
3.3-3
Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs). Section 112 of the Clean Air Act lists 187 HAPs to be regulated by source category. Authority to regulate these pollutants was delegated to individual states. The ARB and local air districts regulate TACs and HAPs in California.
The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality—2009 Edition presents the relevant concentration and cancer risk data for the 10 TACs that pose the most substantial health risk in California based on available data.2 The 10 TACs are acetaldehyde, benzene, 1.3-butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, hexavalent chromium, para-dichlorobenzene, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and diesel particulate matter (DPM).
Diesel Particulate Matter
Some studies indicate that DPM poses the greatest health risk among the TACs listed above. A 10- year research program demonstrated that DPM from diesel-fueled engines is a human carcinogen and that chronic (long-term) inhalation exposure to DPM poses a chronic health risk. In addition to increasing the risk of lung cancer, exposure to diesel exhaust can have other health effects. Diesel exhaust can irritate the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs, and it can cause coughs, headaches, lightheadedness, and nausea. Diesel exhaust is a major source of fine particulate pollution as well, and studies have linked elevated particle levels in the air to increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, asthma attacks, and premature deaths among those suffering from respiratory problems.
DPM differs from other TACs in that it is not a single substance, but a complex mixture of hundreds of substances. Although DPM is emitted by diesel-fueled, internal combustion engines, the composition of the emissions varies depending on engine type, operating conditions, fuel composition, lubricating oil, and whether an emission control system is present. However, no ambient monitoring data are available for DPM because no routine measurement method currently exists. The ARB has made preliminary concentration estimates based on a DPM exposure method.
This method uses the ARB emissions inventory’s PM10 database, ambient PM10 monitoring data, and the results from several studies to estimate concentrations of DPM.
Benzene
Benzene, naphthalene, and ethylbenzene are the only TACs with cancer toxicity values from gasoline dispensing facilities, with benzene accounting for nearly 85 percent of cancer risk from gasoline.
According to CAPCOA, not until the benzene emissions are three orders of magnitude above the rate of an increase of 10 per million cancer risk, do the emissions of xylene begin to cause acute adverse health effects.
Benzene is found in the air from emissions from burning coal and oil, gasoline service stations, and motor vehicle exhaust. Acute (short-term) inhalation exposure of humans to benzene may cause drowsiness, dizziness, headaches, as well as eye, skin, and respiratory tract irritation, and, at high levels, unconsciousness. Chronic (long-term) inhalation exposure has caused various disorders in the blood, including reduced numbers of red blood cells and aplastic anemia, in occupational settings. 2 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2013. The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality—2013 Edition. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/almanac-emissions-air-quality. Accessed June 1, 2023 2457
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-4
Reproductive effects have been reported for women exposed by inhalation to high levels, and adverse effects on the developing fetus have been observed in animal tests. Increased incidence of leukemia (cancer of the tissues that form white blood cells) have been observed in humans occupationally exposed to benzene. EPA has classified benzene as known human carcinogen for all routes of exposure.3 Table 3.3-1 provides a summary of the types, sources, and effects of TACs. 3 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1992, with updates in 2000 and 2012. Benzene. Website:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-09/documents/benzene.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023. 2458
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality
3.3-5
Table 3.3-1: Description of Toxic Air Contaminants of National and California Concern Air Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standard
Federal
Standard
Most Relevant Effects from Pollutant
Exposure Properties Sources
Ozone 1 Hour 0.09 ppm — Irritate respiratory system; reduce lung function; breathing pattern
changes; reduction of breathing
capacity; inflame and damage cells
that line the lungs; make lungs more
susceptible to infection; aggravate
asthma; aggravate other chronic
lung diseases; cause permanent lung
damage; some immunological
changes; increased mortality risk;
vegetation and property damage.
Ozone is a photochemical pollutant
as it is not emitted directly into the
atmosphere but is formed by a
complex series of chemical reactions
between volatile organic compounds
(VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and
sunlight. Ozone is a regional
pollutant that is generated over a
large area and is transported and
spread by the wind. Hot, sunny, and
calm weather conditions are
favorable to ozone formation.
Ozone is a secondary pollutant;
thus, it is not emitted directly into
the lower level of the atmosphere.
The primary sources of ozone
precursors (VOC and NOX) are
mobile sources (on-road and offroad vehicle exhaust).
8 Hours 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppmf
CO 1 Hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Ranges depend on exposure: slight headaches; nausea; aggravation of
angina pectoris (chest pain) and
other aspects of coronary heart
disease; decreased exercise
tolerance in persons with peripheral
vascular disease and lung disease;
impairment of central nervous
system functions; possible increased
risk to fetuses; death.
CO is a colorless, odorless, toxic gas.
CO is somewhat soluble in water;
therefore, rainfall and fog can
suppress CO conditions. CO enters
the body through the lungs,
dissolves in the blood, replaces
oxygen as an attachment to
hemoglobin, and reduces available
oxygen in the blood.
CO is produced by incomplete
combustion of carbon-containing
fuels (e.g., gasoline, diesel fuel, and
biomass). Sources include motor
vehicle exhaust, industrial processes
(metals processing and chemical
manufacturing), residential woodburning, and natural sources. 8 Hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm
NO2
b 1 Hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm Potential to aggravate chronic respiratory disease and respiratory
symptoms in sensitive groups; risk to
public health implied by pulmonary
and extra-pulmonary biochemical
and cellular changes and pulmonary
structural changes; contribution to
atmospheric discoloration;
increased visits to hospital for
respiratory illnesses.
During combustion of fossil fuels,
oxygen reacts with nitrogen to
produce nitrogen oxides—NOX (NO,
NO2, NO3, N2O, N2O3, N2O4, and
N2O5). NOX is a precursor to ozone,
PM10, and PM2.5 formation. NOX can
react with compounds to form nitric
acid and related small particles and
result in PM-related health effects.
NOX is produced in motor vehicle
internal combustion engines and
fossil fuel-fired electric utility and
industrial boilers. NO2 forms quickly
from NOX emissions. NO2
concentrations near major roads
can be 30 to 100 percent higher
than those at monitoring stations.
Annual 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm
2459
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality
3.3-6
Air Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standard
Federal
Standard
Most Relevant Effects from Pollutant
Exposure Properties Sources
SO2
c 1 Hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm Bronchoconstriction accompanied by symptoms which may include
wheezing, shortness of breath and
chest tightness, during exercise or
physical activity in persons with
asthma. Some population-based
studies indicate that the mortality and
morbidity effects associated with fine
particles show a similar association
with ambient SO2 levels. It is not clear
whether the two pollutants act
synergistically, or one pollutant alone
is the predominant factor.
SO2 is a colorless, pungent gas. At
levels greater than 0.5 ppm, the gas
has a strong odor like rotten eggs.
Sulfur oxides (SOX) include SO2 and
sulfur trioxide. Sulfuric acid is formed
from SO2, which can lead to acid
deposition and can harm natural
resources and materials. Although
SO2 concentrations have been
reduced to levels well below State
and federal standards, further
reductions are desirable because SO2
is a precursor to sulfate and PM10.
Human caused sources include fossil
fuel combustion, mineral ore
processing, and chemical
manufacturing. Volcanic emissions
are a natural source of SO2. The gas
can also be produced in the air by
dimethyl sulfide and hydrogen
sulfide. SO2 is removed from the air
by dissolution in water, chemical
reactions, and transfer to soils and
ice caps. The SO2 levels in the State
are well below the maximum
standards.
3 Hours — 0.5 ppm
24 Hours 0.04 ppm 0.14
(for certain
areas)
Annual — 0.030 ppm
(for certain
areas)
Particulate
matter
(PM10)
24 hours 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 • Short-term exposure (hours/days):
irritation of the eyes, nose, throat;
coughing; phlegm; chest
tightness; shortness of breath;
aggravate existing lung disease,
causing asthma attacks and acute
bronchitis; those with heart
disease can suffer heart attacks
and arrhythmias.
• Long-term exposure: reduced lung
function; chronic bronchitis;
changes in lung morphology;
death.
Suspended particulate matter is a
mixture of small particles that
consist of dry solid fragments,
droplets of water, or solid cores with
liquid coatings. The particles vary in
shape, size, and composition. PM10
refers to particulate matter that is
between 2.5 and 10 microns in
diameter, (1 micron is one-millionth
of a meter). PM2.5 refers to
particulate matter that is 2.5
microns or less in diameter, about
one-thirtieth the size of the average
human hair.
Stationary sources include fuel or
wood combustion for electrical
utilities, residential space heating,
and industrial processes;
construction and demolition;
metals, minerals, and
petrochemicals; wood products
processing; mills and elevators used
in agriculture; erosion from tilled
lands; waste disposal, and recycling.
Mobile or transportation-related
sources are from vehicle exhaust
and road dust. Secondary particles
form from reactions in the
atmosphere.
Mean 20 µg/m3 —
Particulate
matter
(PM2.5)
24 Hours — 35 µg/m3
Annual 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3
Visibilityreducing
particles
8 Hours See note belowd
Sulfates 24 Hours 25 µg/m3 — Decrease in ventilatory function; aggravation of asthmatic symptoms;
aggravation of cardiopulmonary
disease; vegetation damage;
degradation of visibility; and
property damage.
The sulfate ion is a polyatomic anion
with the empirical formula SO4
2−.
Sulfates occur in combination with
metal and/or hydrogen ions. Many
sulfates are soluble in water.
Sulfates are particulates formed
through the photochemical oxidation
of SO2. In California, the main source
of sulfur compounds is combustion
of gasoline and diesel fuel.
2460
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality
3.3-7
Air Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standard
Federal
Standard
Most Relevant Effects from Pollutant
Exposure Properties Sources
Leade 30 days 1.5 µg/m3 — Lead accumulates in bones, soft tissue, and blood and can affect the
kidneys, liver, and nervous system. It
can cause impairment of blood
formation and nerve conduction,
behavior disorders, mental
retardation, neurological impairment,
learning deficiencies, and low IQs.
Lead is a solid heavy metal that can
exist in air pollution as an aerosol
particle component. Leaded gasoline
was used in motor vehicles until
around 1970. Lead concentrations
have not exceeded State or federal
standards at any monitoring station
since 1982.
Lead ore crushing, lead ore smelting,
and battery manufacturing are
currently the largest sources of lead
in the atmosphere in the United
States. Other sources include dust
from soils contaminated with leadbased paint, solid waste disposal, and crustal physical weathering.
Quarter — 1.5 µg/m3
Rolling 3-
month
average
— 0.15 µg/m3
Vinyl
chloridee
24 Hours 0.01 ppm — Short-term exposure to high levels of vinyl chloride in the air causes central
nervous system effects, such as
dizziness, drowsiness, and
headaches. Epidemiological studies
of occupationally exposed workers
have linked vinyl chloride exposure to
development of a rare cancer, liver
angiosarcoma, and have suggested a
relationship between exposure and
lung and brain cancers.
Vinyl chloride, or chloroethene, is a
chlorinated hydrocarbon and a
colorless gas with a mild, sweet odor.
In 1990, the ARB identified vinyl
chloride as a TAC and estimated a
cancer unit risk factor.
Most vinyl chloride is used to make
polyvinyl chloride plastic and vinyl
products, including pipes, wire and
cable coatings, and packaging
materials. It can be formed when
plastics containing these substances
are left to decompose in solid waste
landfills. Vinyl chloride has been
detected near landfills, sewage
plants, and hazardous waste sites.
Hydrogen
sulfide
1 Hour 0.03 ppm — High levels of hydrogen sulfide can
cause immediate respiratory arrest. It
can irritate the eyes and respiratory
tract and cause headache, nausea,
vomiting, and cough. Long exposure
can cause pulmonary edema.
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is a
flammable, colorless, poisonous gas
that smells like rotten eggs.
Manure, storage tanks, ponds,
anaerobic lagoons, and land
application-sites are the primary
sources of hydrogen sulfide.
Anthropogenic sources include the
combustion of sulfur containing fuels
(oil and coal).
VOC There are no State or
federal standards for VOCs
because they are not
classified as criteria
pollutants.
Although health-based standards
have not been established for VOCs,
health effects can occur from
exposures to high concentrations
because of interference with oxygen
uptake. In general, concentrations of
VOCs are suspected to cause eye,
nose, and throat irritation;
Reactive organic gases (ROGs), or
VOCs, are defined as any compound
of carbon—excluding CO, carbon
dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic
carbides or carbonates, and
ammonium carbonate—that
participates in atmospheric
photochemical reactions. Although
Indoor sources of VOCs include
paints, solvents, aerosol sprays,
cleansers, tobacco smoke, etc.
Outdoor sources of VOCs are from
combustion and fuel evaporation. A
reduction in VOC emissions reduces
certain chemical reactions that
contribute to the formulation of
2461
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality
3.3-8
Air Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standard
Federal
Standard
Most Relevant Effects from Pollutant
Exposure Properties Sources
headaches; loss of coordination;
nausea and damage to the liver, the
kidneys, and the central nervous
system. Many VOCs have been
classified TACs.
there are slight differences in the
definition of ROG and VOCs, the two
terms are often used
interchangeably.
ozone. VOCs are transformed into
organic aerosols in the atmosphere,
which contribute to higher PM10 and
lower visibility.
Diesel particulate matter
(DPM)
There are no ambient air
quality standards for DPM.
Some short-term (acute) effects of
DPM exposure include eye, nose,
throat, and lung irritation, coughs,
headaches, lightheadedness, and
nausea. Studies have linked elevated
particle levels in the air to increased
hospital admissions, emergency room
visits, asthma attacks, and premature
deaths among those suffering from
respiratory problems. Human studies
on the carcinogenicity of DPM
demonstrate an increased risk of lung
cancer, although the increased risk
cannot be clearly attributed to diesel
exhaust exposure.
DPM is a source of PM2.5—diesel
particles are typically 2.5 microns
and smaller. Diesel exhaust is a
complex mixture of thousands of
particles and gases that is produced
when an engine burns diesel fuel.
Organic compounds account for 80
percent of the total particulate
matter mass, which consists of
compounds such as hydrocarbons
and their derivatives, and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons and their
derivatives. Fifteen polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons are
confirmed carcinogens, several
which are found in diesel exhaust.
Diesel exhaust is a major source of
ambient particulate matter
pollution in urban environments.
Typically, the main source of DPM is
from combustion of diesel fuel in
diesel-powered engines. Such
engines are in on-road vehicles such
as diesel trucks, off-road
construction vehicles, diesel
electrical generators, and various
pieces of stationary construction
equipment.
Asbestos — — Inhalation
exposures
not exceed
100,000
fibers with
lengths
greater than
or equal to 5
µm per m3 of
air (0.1
fibers/mL).
Exposure to asbestos is a health
threat; exposure to asbestos fibers
may result in health issues such as
lung cancer, mesothelioma (a rare
cancer of the thin membranes lining
the lungs, chest, and abdominal
cavity), and asbestosis (a noncancerous lung disease that causes scarring of the lungs).
Asbestos is the name given to
several naturally occurring fibrous
silicate minerals that have been
mined for their useful properties,
such as thermal insulation, chemical
and thermal stability, and high
tensile strength. The three most
common types of asbestos are
chrysotile, amosite, and crocidolite.
Chrysotile, also known as white
asbestos, is the most common type
of asbestos found in buildings.
Chrysotile makes up approximately
Asbestos fibers can come from
naturally occurring sources of
asbestos or from the wearing down
or disturbance of manufactured
products including insulation,
automotive brakes and clutches,
ceiling and floor tiles, dry wall, roof
shingles, and cement. However,
these products do not always
contain asbestos.
2462
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality
3.3-9
Air Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standard
Federal
Standard
Most Relevant Effects from Pollutant
Exposure Properties Sources
90 to 95 percent of all asbestos
contained in buildings in the United
States. Asbestos fibers do not
evaporate into air or dissolve in
water. However, pieces of fibers can
enter the air and water from the
weathering of natural deposits and
the wearing down of manufactured
asbestos products. Small diameter
fibers and fiber-containing particles
may remain suspended in the air for
a long time and be carried long
distances by wind or water currents
before settling. Larger diameter
fibers and particles tend to settle
more quickly. Asbestos fibers are
not able to move through soil. They
are generally not broken down to
other compounds in the
environment and will remain
virtually unchanged over long
periods.
Notes:
ppm=parts per million (concentration) µg/m3=micrograms per cubic meter Annual=Annual Arithmetic Mean Quarter=Calendar quarter a Federal standard refers to the primary NAAQS, or the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. All standards listed are primary standards except for 3-Hour SO2, which is a secondary standard. A secondary standard is the level of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. b To attain the 1-hour NO2 national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 parts per billion (ppb) (0.100 ppm). c On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established, and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until 1 year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved. d Visibility-reducing particles: In 1989, the ARB converted both the general Statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are “extinction of 0.23 per kilometer” and “extinction of 0.07 per kilometer” for the Statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively. 2463
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality
3.3-10
Air Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standard
Federal
Standard
Most Relevant Effects from Pollutant
Exposure Properties Sources
e The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as TACs with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants. f The EPA Administrator approved a revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.07 ppb on October 1, 2015. The new standard went into effect 60 days after publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register. The Final Rule was published in the Federal Register on October 26, 2015, and became effective on December 28, 2015. g The official level of the 1-hour NO2 standard is 100 ppb, equal to 0.100 ppm, which is shown here for the purpose of clearer comparison to the other standards.
Source of effects, properties, and sources: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2016. Public Health Statement for Asbestos. Website: Asbestos | Public Health Statement | ATSDR (cdc.gov), Accessed January 22, 2024.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2003. Particle Pollution and your Health. EPA-452/F-03-001. September. Website: https://www.airnow.gov/publications/air-quality-andyour-health/partical-pollution-and-your-health/. Accessed June 1, 2023.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Ozone and your Health EPA-456/F-09-001. Website: https://www.airnow.gov/publications/air-quality-and-your-health/ozone-andyour-health/. Accessed August 9, 2022.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Fact Sheet, Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide. July. Website:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-07-15/pdf/E9-15944.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Technology Transfer Network, Air Toxics Website. Page updated December 21, 2018. Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air Pollutants. December. Website: https://www.epa.gov/haps/health-effects-notebook-hazardous-air-pollutants. Accessed June 1, 2023.
National Toxicology Program. 2011. Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. June 10. Benzene. Website:
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/Benzene.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023.
National Toxicology Program. 2016. Report on Carcinogens, Fourteenth Edition; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Diesel Exhaust Particles. Website:
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/content/profiles/dieselexhaustparticulates.pdf. Accessed June 1, 20232.
California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). 2002. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust. Website:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/indicators/diesel4-02.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023.
California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2009. Vinyl Chloride. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/vinyl-chloride-and-health. Accessed June 1, 2023.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. Indoor Air Quality. Sources of Indoor Air Pollution—Organic Gases (Volatile Organic Compounds—VOCs). November. Website:
www.epa.gov/iaq/voc.html. Accessed June 1, 2023.
National Toxicology Program. 2011. Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Diesel Exhaust Particles. Website:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/proposition-65/crnr/comments/12throc-complete.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023.
Source of standards: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2018. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) Attainment Status for South Coast Air Basin. February. Website http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/naaqs-caaqs-feb2016.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
Accessed June 1, 2023.
2464
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality
3.3-11
Several pollutants listed in Table 3.3-1 are not addressed in this analysis. An analysis of lead is not included in this report because the proposed project would not generate a new, significant source of lead emissions. According to aerial imagery in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA), all on-site improvements, including structures and outbuildings, were constructed after 2016 and would not contain hazardous materials such as lead-based paint or asbestos-containing material. Visibilityreducing particles are not explicitly addressed in this analysis because particulate matter is addressed under the analysis for PM10 and PM2.5. Given the nature of the proposed project, no components of the proposed project would result in vinyl chloride or hydrogen sulfide emissions in any substantial quantity; therefore, these compounds are not further evaluated in this report.
Asbestos
Asbestos is the name given to several naturally occurring fibrous silicate minerals that have been mined for their useful properties,such as thermal insulation, chemical and thermal stability, and high tensile strength. The three most common types of asbestos are chrysotile, amosite, and crocidolite. Chrysotile, also known as white asbestos, is the most common type of asbestos found in buildings. Chrysotile makes up approximately 90 to 95 percent of all asbestos contained in buildings in the United States. Exposure to asbestos is a health threat; exposure to asbestos fibers may result in health issues such as lung cancer, mesothelioma (a rare cancer of the thin membranes lining the lungs, chest, and abdominal cavity), and asbestosis (a non-cancerous lung disease that causes scarring of the lungs). Exposure to asbestos can occur during demolition or remodeling of buildings that were constructed prior to the 1977 ban on asbestos for use in buildings. Although construction activity would result in the demolition of several small outbuildings associated with agricultural use on the project site, these structures would not contain asbestos. According to aerial imagery in the Phase I ESA, all on-site improvements, including structures, were constructed after 2016, and would not contain hazardous materials such as lead-based paint or asbestos-containing material. Exposure to naturally occurring asbestos can occur during soil-disturbing activities in areas with deposits present. No naturally occurring asbestos is located near the project site.4 Valley Fever
Valley Fever, or coccidioidomycosis, is an infection caused by inhalation of spores of the fungus, Coccidioides immitis (C. immitis). Spores live in soil and can live for an extended time in harsh environmental conditions. Activities or conditions that increase the amount of fugitive dust, including dust storms, grading, and recreational off-road activities, contribute to greater exposure.
Much of California is considered an endemic area for Valley Fever and a total of 9,004 new Valley Fever cases were reported in 2019.5 According to the most readily-available, the California Department of Public Health, in 2020, there were 309 cases of Valley Fever in Tulare County with 64.3 per 100,000 case patients and in 2021, 170 cases of Valley Fever with 61.0 per 100,000 case patients.6 Nearly 75 percent of people who get Valley Fever miss work or school for an average of two weeks. More than 40 percent of people who get Valley Fever need to be hospitalized. The number of Valley Fever cases 4 California Department of Conservation, Division of Mine Reclamation. 2000. A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California—Areas More likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos. August. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//toxics/asbestos/ofr_2000-019.pdf. Accessed August 9, 2022. 5 California Department of Public Health. 2019. Epidemiologic Summary of Valley Fever in California. 6 California Department of Health. 2022. Epidemiologic Summary of Valley Fever (Coccoidiomycosis) in California, 2020-2021.
Website: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/CocciEpiSummary2020-2021.pdf.
Accessed April 27, 2023.
2465
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-12
reported nationally has more than quadrupled in the past decade. There were over 11,000 reported cases in 2015, and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that an additional 150,000 cases go undiagnosed each year. About 28 percent of all cases occur in California. There have been several outbreaks of Valley Fever in California in recent years.
The distribution of C. immitis is not uniform, and growth sites are commonly small (a few tens of meters) and widely scattered. Known sites appear to have some ecological factors in common, suggesting that certain physical, chemical, and biological conditions are more favorable for C. immitis growth. Avoidance, when possible, of sites favorable for the occurrence of C. immitis is a prudent risk management strategy. Listed below are ecologic factors and sites favorable for the occurrence of C. immitis:
1. Rodent burrows (often a favorable site for C. immitis, perhaps because temperatures are more moderate and humidity higher than on the ground surface).
2. Old (prehistoric) Native American campsites near fire pits.
3. Areas with sparse vegetation and alkaline soils.
4. Areas with high salinity soils.
5. Areas adjacent to arroyos (where residual moisture may be available).
6. Packrat middens.
7. Upper 30 centimeters of the soil horizon, especially in virgin undisturbed soils.
8. Sandy well aerated soil with relatively high water-holding capacities.
Sites within endemic areas less favorable for the occurrence of C. immitis include:
1. Cultivated fields.
2. Heavily vegetated areas (e.g., grassy lawns).
3. Higher elevations (above 7,000 feet.)
4. Areas where commercial fertilizers (e.g., ammonium sulfate) have been applied.
5. Areas that are continually wet.
6. Paved (asphalt or concrete) or oiled areas.
7. Soils containing abundant microorganisms.
8. Heavily urbanized areas where there is little undisturbed virgin soil. 7 The project site currently contains several small outbuildings associated with agricultural use and is used for agricultural purposes. Exposure to C. immitis could occur during soil-disturbing activities in areas with deposits present; however, because most of the project site and immediately surrounding vicinity consists of cultivated fields, areas where fertilizers are used, and urbanized development, the 7 United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2000. Operational Guidelines (Version 1.0) for Geological Fieldwork in Areas Endemic for Coccidioidomycosis (Valley Fever), 2000, Open-File Report 2000-348. Website: https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/0348/pdf/of00- 348.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023.
2466
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality
3.3-13
project site would have low probability of C. immitis growth sites or exposure from disturbed soil. No further analysis is necessary.
Air Quality
Air quality is a function of both the rate and location of pollutant emissions under the influence of meteorological conditions and topographic features. Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, and air temperature inversions interact with the physical features of the landscape to determine the movement and dispersal of air pollutant emissions and, consequently, their effect on air quality.
Regional Air Quality
Air Pollutant Standards and Attainment Designations
The EPA and the ARB designate air basins where ambient air quality standards are exceeded as “nonattainment” areas. If standards are met, the area is designated as an “attainment” area. If there is inadequate or inconclusive data to make a definitive attainment designation, they are considered “unclassified.” National nonattainment areas are further designated as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme as a function of deviation from standards.
Each standard has a different definition, or “form” of what constitutes attainment, based on specific air quality statistics. For example, the federal 8-hour CO standard is not to be exceeded more than once per year; therefore, an area is in attainment of the CO standard if no more than one 8-hour ambient air monitoring values exceeds the threshold per year. In contrast, the federal annual PM2.5 standard is met if the 3-year average of the annual average PM2.5 concentration is less than or equal to the standard.
The current attainment designations for the Air Basin are shown in Table 3.3-2. The Air Basin is designated as nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5.
Table 3.3-2: San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Attainment Status Pollutant State Status National Status
Ozone, 1-hour Nonattainment/Severe No Standard
Ozone, 8-hour Nonattainment Nonattainment/Extreme
CO Attainment Attainment
NO2 Attainment Attainment
SO2 Attainment Attainment
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
Lead Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
Source: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District). Website:
https://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm. Accessed June 1, 2023. 2467
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-14
Local Air Quality
The local air quality can be evaluated by reviewing relevant air pollution concentrations near the project site. Table 3.3-3 summarizes 2018 through 2020 published monitoring data. The table displays data from the Visalia North Church Street Station (located approximately 9 miles southeast of the project site), which is the closest monitoring station to the project site with data available. The data shows that during the past few years, the project site and vicinity have exceeded the standards for ozone (State and national), PM10 (State and national), and PM2.5 (national). The data in the table reflects the concentration of the pollutants in the air, measured using air monitoring equipment. This differs from emissions, which are calculations of a pollutant being emitted over a certain period. No recent monitoring data for Tulare County or the Air Basin was available for CO or SO2. Generally, no monitoring is conducted for pollutants that are no longer likely to exceed ambient air quality standards.
Table 3.3-3: Air Quality Monitoring Summary
Air Pollutant
Averaging
Time Item 2018 2019 2020
Ozone1 1 Hour Max 1 Hour (ppm) 0.112 0.093 0.127
Days > State Standard (0.09 ppm) 8 0 7
8 Hour Max 8 Hour (ppm) 0.094 0.082 0.102
Days > State Standard (0.07 ppm) 53 22 36
Days > National Standard (0.075 ppm) 27 5 21
Nitrogen
dioxide (NO2)
1 Annual Annual Average (ppm) 0.010 0.009 0.009
1 Hour Max 1 Hour (ppm) 0.069 0.070 0.053
Days > State Standard (0.18 ppm) 0 0 0
Inhalable
coarse particles
(PM10)
1 Annual Annual Average (µg/m3) 52.0 46.3 60.5
24 Hour 24 Hour (µg/m3
) 159.6 418.5 305.7
Days > State Standard (50 µg/m3) 162 115 151
Days > National Standard (150 µg/m3) 0 5 19
Fine particulate
matter (PM2.5)
1 Annual Annual Average (µg/m3)
2 17.4 12.0 ND
24 Hour 24 Hour (µg/m3) 86.8 47.2 127.1
Days > National Standard (35 µg/m3) 12 6 20
Notes:
> = exceed
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Bold = exceedance
max = maximum
National Standard = National Ambient Air Quality Standard ND = no data
ppm = parts per million
State Standard = California Ambient Air Quality Standard 1 Visalia North Church Street
2468
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality
3.3-15
Air Pollutant
Averaging
Time Item 2018 2019 2020
2 The State PM2.5 standard is the average of the year's quarterly averages. The California annual standard is exceeded when the State Annual Average is greater than 12 micrograms per cubic meter and is violated when the State Annual Standard Designation Value (the highest State annual average for three consecutive years) is greater than 12 micrograms per cubic meter.
Sources: California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2022. Trends Summary. Website:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/trends/trends1.php. Accessed June 1, 2023.
California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2020. Top Four Summary. Website:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php. Accessed June 1, 2023.
The health impacts of the various air pollutants of concern can be presented in a number of ways.
The clearest in comparison is to the State and federal ozone standards. If concentrations are below the standard, it is safe to say that no health impact would occur to anyone. When concentrations exceed the standard, impacts will vary based on the amount by which the standard is exceeded and the relative location of sensitive receptors. The EPA developed the Air Quality Index (AQI) as an easyto-understand measure of health impacts compared with concentrations in the air. Table 3.3-4 provides a description of the health impacts of ozone at different concentrations.
Table 3.3-4: Air Quality Index and Health Effects from Ozone Air Quality Index/
8-hour Ozone Concentration Health Effects Description
AQI 100—Moderate Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk.
Concentration 75 ppb Health Effects Statements: Unusually sensitive individuals may experience respiratory symptoms.
Cautionary Statements: Unusually sensitive people should consider limiting prolonged outdoor exertion.
AQI 150—Unhealthy for
Sensitive Groups
Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk.
Concentration 95 ppb Health Effects Statements: Increasing likelihood of respiratory symptoms and breathing discomfort in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma.
Cautionary Statements: Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should limit prolonged outdoor exertion.
AQI 200—Unhealthy Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk.
Concentration 115 ppb Health Effects Statements: Greater likelihood of respiratory symptoms and breathing difficulty in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma; possible respiratory effects in general population.
Cautionary Statements: Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should avoid prolonged outdoor exertion; everyone else, especially children, should limit prolonged outdoor exertion. 2469
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-16
Air Quality Index/
8-hour Ozone Concentration Health Effects Description
AQI 210—Very Unhealthy Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk.
Concentration 139 ppb Health Effects Statements: Increasingly severe symptoms and impaired breathing likely in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma; increasing likelihood of respiratory effects in general population.
Cautionary Statements: Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should avoid all outdoor exertion; everyone else, especially children, should limit outdoor exertion.
Source: Air Now. 2022. AQI Calculator: AQI to Concentration. Website: https://www.airnow.gov/aqi/aqi-calculator/.
Accessed June 1, 2023.
Based on the AQI scale for the 8-hour ozone standard, the City of Visalia experienced no days in the last three years that would be categorized as Very Unhealthy (AQI 210) or unhealthful (AQI 200), and as many as 27 days that were moderate (AQI 100) as measured at the Visalia North Church Street monitoring station. The highest reading was 102 parts per billion (ppb) in 2020 compared with the 95-ppb cutoff point for unhealthful for sensitive groups (AQI 150), but lower than the 115-ppb cutoff point for unhealthy (AQI 200).
The other nonattainment pollutant of concern is PM2.5. An AQI of 100 or lower is considered moderate and would be triggered by a 24-hour average concentration of 35.4 µg/m3 , which is
considered an exceedance of the federal PM2.5 standard. The monitoring station nearest the project site exceeded the standard by approximately 38 days in the 3-year period spanning from 2018 to 2020. People with respiratory or heart disease, the elderly and children are the groups most at risk.
Unusually sensitive people should consider reducing prolonged or heavy exertion. The AQI of 150 is classified as unhealthful for sensitive groups with a PM2.5 concentration of 55.4 µg/m3 . At this
concentration, there is increasing likelihood of respiratory symptoms in sensitive individuals, aggravation of heart or lung disease and premature mortality in persons with cardiopulmonary disease, and in the elderly. People with respiratory or heart disease, the elderly, and children should limit prolonged exertion. The highest concentration recorded in Visalia was 121 µg/m3 in 2020. At this concentration, increased aggravation of heart or lung disease and premature mortality in persons with cardiopulmonary disease and the elderly, and increased respiratory effects in general population would occur. People with respiratory or heart disease, the elderly, and children should avoid prolonged exertion; everyone else should limit prolonged exertion when the AQI exceeds this level. The relationship of the AQI to health effects in shown Table 3.3-5. 2470
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality
3.3-17
Table 3.3-5: Air Quality Index and Health Effects of Particulate Pollution Air Quality Index/24-hour Average
PM2.5 Concentration Health Effects Description
AQI 51–100—Moderate Sensitive Groups: People with respiratory or heart disease, the elderly and children are the groups most at risk.
Concentration 12.1-35.4 µg/m3 Health Effects Statements: Unusually sensitive people should consider reducing prolonged or heavy exertion.
Cautionary Statements: Unusually sensitive people: Consider reducing prolonged or heavy exertion. Watch for symptoms such as coughing or shortness of breath. These are signs to take it easier.
AQI 100–150—Unhealthy for
Sensitive Groups
Sensitive Groups: People with respiratory or heart disease, the elderly and children are the groups most at risk.
Concentration 35.5-55.4 µg/m2 Health Effects Statements: Increased aggravation of heart or lung disease and premature mortality in persons with cardiopulmonary disease and the elderly; increased respiratory effects in general population.
Cautionary Statements: People with respiratory or heart disease, the elderly and children should avoid prolonged exertion; everyone else should limit prolonged exertion.
AQI 151–200—Unhealthy Sensitive Groups: Everyone
Concentration 55.5-150.4 µg/m3 Health Effects Statements: Increased aggravation of heart or lung disease and premature mortality in persons with cardiopulmonary disease and the elderly; increased respiratory effects in general population.
Cautionary Statements: Sensitive groups: Avoid prolonged or heavy exertion. Consider moving activities indoors or rescheduling. Everyone else: Reduce prolonged or heavy exertion. Take more breaks during outdoor activities.
AQI 201-300—Very Unhealthy Sensitive Groups: People with respiratory or heart disease, the elderly and children are the groups most at risk.
Concentration 150.5-250.4 µg/m3 Health Effects Statements: Significant aggravation of heart or lung disease and premature mortality in persons with cardiopulmonary disease and the elderly; significant increase in respiratory effects in general population.
Cautionary Statements: People with respiratory or heart disease, the elderly and children should avoid any outdoor activity; everyone else should avoid prolonged exertion.
Source: EPA. 2014. Air Quality Index for Particle Pollution. Website: https://www.airnow.gov/aqi/aqi-basics/using-airquality-index/. Accessed August 9, 2022.
EPA. 2014. AQI Calculator. Website: https://www.airnow.gov/aqi/aqi-calculator/. Accessed June 1, 2023. 2471
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-18
3.3.2 - Regulatory Framework
Federal
Clean Air Act
Congress established much of the basic structure of the Clean Air Act (CAA) in 1970, and made major revisions in 1977 and 1990. Six common air pollutants (also known as criteria pollutants) are addressed in the CAA. These are particulate matter, ground-level ozone, CO, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and lead. The EPA calls these pollutants criteria air pollutants, because it regulates them by developing human health-based and/or environmentally based criteria (science-based guidelines) for setting permissible levels. The set of limits based on human health are called primary standards.
Another set of limits intended to prevent environmental and property damage are called secondary standards.
8 The federal standards are called National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The air quality standards provide benchmarks for determining whether air quality is healthy at specific locations and whether development activities will cause or contribute to a violation of the standards.
The criteria pollutants are:
• Ozone • Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5)
• Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) • Carbon monoxide (CO)
• Lead • Sulfur dioxide
The federal standards were set to protect public health, including that of sensitive individuals; thus, the EPA is tasked with updating the standards as more medical research is available regarding the health effects of the criteria pollutants. Primary federal standards are the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health.
The CAA also requires each state to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as a State Implementation Plan (SIP). The federal Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 added requirements for states with nonattainment areas to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of the air basins, as reported by their jurisdictional agencies.
State
Air pollutants are regulated at the national, State, and air basin or county level; each agency has a different level of regulatory responsibility. The EPA regulates at the national level. The ARB regulates at the State level. The Valley Air District regulates at the air basin level.
The EPA is responsible for national and interstate air pollution issues and policies. The EPA sets national vehicle and stationary source emission standards, oversees approval of all State Implementation Plans (SIPs), provides research and guidance for air pollution programs, and sets the NAAQS.
8 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014. Clean Air Act Requirements and History. Website:
https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/clean-air-act-requirements-and-history. Accessed June 1, 2023. 2472
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality
3.3-19
A SIP is a document prepared by each state describing existing air quality conditions and measures that will be followed to attain and maintain federal air standards. The SIP for the State of California is administered by the ARB, which has overall responsibility for Statewide air quality maintenance and air pollution prevention. California’s SIP incorporates individual federal attainment plans for regional air districts—an air district prepares their federal attainment plan, which is sent to the ARB to be approved and incorporated into the California SIP. Federal attainment plans include the technical foundation for understanding air quality (e.g., emission inventories and air quality monitoring), control measures and strategies, and enforcement mechanisms.
Areas designated nonattainment must develop air quality plans and regulations to achieve standards by specified dates, depending on the severity of the exceedances. For much of the country, implementation of federal motor vehicle standards and compliance with federal permitting requirements for industrial sources are adequate to attain air quality standards on schedule. For many areas of California, however, additional State and local regulation is required to achieve the standards. Regulations adopted by California are described below.
Low Emission Vehicle Program
The ARB first adopted Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) program standards in 1990. These first LEV standards ran from 1994 through 2003. LEV II regulations, running from 2004 through 2010, represented continuing progress in emission reductions. As the State’s passenger vehicle fleet continues to grow and more sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks are used as passenger cars rather than work vehicles, the more stringent LEV II standards were adopted to provide reductions necessary for California to meet federally mandated clean air goals outlined in the 1994 SIP. In 2012, ARB adopted the LEV III amendments to California’s LEV regulations. These amendments, also known as the Advanced Clean Cars Program, include more stringent emission standards for model years 2017 through 2025 for both criteria pollutants and GHGs for new passenger vehicles.9 California Air Resources Board Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos In July 2001, the ARB approved an Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) for construction, grading, quarrying, and surface mining operations to minimize emissions of naturally occurring asbestos. The regulation requires application of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control fugitive dust in areas known to have naturally occurring asbestos and requires notification to the local air district prior to commencement of ground-disturbing activities. The measure establishes specific testing, notification and engineering controls prior to grading, quarrying, or surface mining in construction zones where naturally occurring asbestos is located on projects of any size. There are additional notification and engineering controls at work sites larger than 1 acre. These projects require the submittal of a “Dust Mitigation Plan” and approval by the air district prior to the start of a project.
Construction sometimes requires the demolition of existing buildings where construction occurs; the project site includes several small outbuildings associated with agricultural use which would be demolished as part of the proposed project. In addition, asbestos is also found in a natural state, known as naturally occurring asbestos. Exposure and disturbance of rock and soil that naturally 9 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2012. Low Emission Vehicle Program. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/levprog/levprog.htm. Accessed June 1, 2023. 2473
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-20
contain asbestos can result in the release of fibers into the air and consequent exposure to the public. Asbestos most commonly occurs in ultramafic rock that has undergone partial or complete alteration to serpentine rock (serpentinite) and often contains chrysotile asbestos. In addition, another form of asbestos, tremolite, can be found associated with ultramafic rock, particularly near faults. Sources of asbestos emissions include unpaved roads or driveways surfaced with ultramafic rock, construction activities in ultramafic rock deposits, or rock quarrying activities where ultramafic rock is present. Exposure to naturally occurring asbestos can occur during soil-disturbing activities in areas with deposits present. However, as noted above, no naturally occurring asbestos is located near the project site.10
Areas are subject to the regulation if they are identified on maps published by the Department of Conservation as ultramafic rock units or if the Air Pollution Control Officer or owner/operator has knowledge of the presence of ultramafic rock, serpentine, or naturally occurring asbestos on the site. The measure also applies if ultramafic rock, serpentine, or asbestos is discovered during any operation or activity. Review of the Department of Conservation maps indicates that no ultramafic rock has been found near the project site.
Diesel Risk Reduction Plan
The ARB’s Diesel Risk Reduction Plan has led to the adoption of new State regulatory standards for all new on-road, off-road, and stationary diesel-fueled engines and vehicles to reduce DPM emissions by about 90 percent overall from year 2000 levels. The projected emission benefits associated with the full implementation of this plan, including federal measures, are reductions in DPM emissions and associated cancer risks of 75 percent by 2010, and 85 percent by 2020.11 California Air Resources Board Regulation for In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicles On July 26, 2007, the ARB adopted a regulation to reduce DPM and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions from in-use (existing) off-road heavy-duty diesel vehicles in California. Such vehicles are used in construction, mining, and industrial operations. The regulation limits idling to no more than 5 consecutive minutes, requires reporting and labeling, and requires disclosure of the regulation upon vehicle sale. The ARB is enforcing that part of the rule with fines up to $10,000 per day for each vehicle in violation. Performance requirements of the rule are based on a fleet’s average NOX emissions, which can be met by replacing older vehicles with newer, cleaner vehicles or by applying exhaust retrofits. The regulation was amended in 2010 to delay the original timeline of the performance requirements, making the first compliance deadline January 1, 2014 for large fleets (over 5,000 horsepower), 2017 for medium fleets (2,501-5,000 horsepower), and 2019 for small fleets (2,500 horsepower or less).
The latest amendments to the Truck and Bus regulation became effective on December 31, 2014.
The amended regulation requires diesel trucks and buses that operate in California to be upgraded to reduce emissions. Newer heavier trucks and buses met particulate matter (PM) filter 10 California Department of Conservation, Division of Mine Reclamation. 2000. A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California—Areas More likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos. August. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//toxics/asbestos/ofr_2000-019.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023. 11 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-fueled Engines and Vehicles. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/diesel-risk-reduction-plan. Accessed June 1, 2023. 2474
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality
3.3-21
requirements beginning January 1, 2012. Mandatory replacement of lighter and older heavier trucks began January 1, 2015. By January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses will need to have 2010 model year engines or equivalent.
The regulation applies to nearly all privately and federally owned diesel-fueled trucks and buses and to privately and publicly owned school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds. The regulation provides a variety of flexibility options tailored to fleets operating low use vehicles, fleets operating in selected vocations like agricultural and construction, and small fleets of three or fewer trucks.
On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicle Program
The ARB has adopted standards for emissions from various types of new on-road heavy-duty vehicles. Section 1956.8, Title 13, California Code of Regulations contains California’s emission standards for on-road heavy-duty engines and vehicles, and test procedures. The ARB has also adopted programs to reduce emissions from in-use heavy-duty vehicles including the Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Idling Reduction Program, the Heavy-Duty Diesel In-Use Compliance Program, the Public Bus Fleet Rule and Engine Standards, and the School Bus Program and others.12 Regulations for Heavy-Duty Vehicles/Trucks
California Air Resources Board Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling
This ATCM adopted Section 2485 within Chapter 10, Article 1, Division 3, title 13 in the California Code of Regulations. The measure limits the idling of diesel vehicles (i.e., commercial trucks over 10,000 pounds) to reduce emissions of toxics and criteria pollutants. The driver of any vehicle subject to this section: (1) shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location; and (2) shall not idle a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system for more than 5 minutes to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on the vehicle if it has a sleeper berth and the truck is located within 100 feet of a restricted area (homes and schools).
California Air Resources Board Requirements to Reduce Idling Emissions from New and In-Use Trucks.
Amendments were made to Title 13 in California Code of Regulations in Sections 1956.8, 2404, 2424, 2425, and 2485. Among other things, the amendments state: “All new 2008 and subsequent model year heavy-duty diesel engines shall be equipped with an engine shutdown system that automatically shuts down the engine after 300 seconds of continuous idling operation once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to ‘neutral’ or ‘park,’ and the parking brake is engaged. If the parking brake is not engaged, then the engine shutdown system shall shut down the engine after 900 seconds of continuous idling operation once the vehicle is stopped and the transmission is set to ‘neutral’ or ‘park.’” There are a few conditions where the engine shutdown system can be overridden to prevent engine damage. Any trucks involved in the operation of the proposed project that are manufactured after 2008 would be consistent with this rule, which would ultimately reduce air emissions.
12 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2013. The California Almanac of Air Quality and Emissions—2013 Edition. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/resource-center/technical-assistance/air-quality-and-emissions-data/almanac.
Accessed June 1, 2023.
2475
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-22
Statewide Truck and Bus Regulation
(Regulation to Reduce Emissions of DPM, Oxides of Nitrogen and Other Criteria Pollutants, from InUse Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles, Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Section 2025). On December 12, 2008, the ARB approved this regulation (Regulation to Reduce Emissions of DPM, Oxides of Nitrogen and Other Criteria Pollutants, from In-Use Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles, Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Section 2025) to reduce emissions from existing on-road diesel trucks and buses operating in California. This regulation applies to all on-road heavy-duty diesel-fueled vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds, agricultural yard trucks with off-road certified engines, and certain diesel-fueled shuttle vehicles of any gross vehicle weight rating. Out-of-state trucks and buses that operate in California are also subject to the regulation. Under the regulation, older, heavier trucks (i.e., those with pre-2000 year engines and a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 26,000 pounds), are required to have installed a PM filter and must be replaced with a 2010 engine between 2015 and 2020, depending on the model year.
Air Toxics Contaminant Measure for Transportation Refrigeration Units and Transportation Refrigeration Generator Sets
This measure was adopted by the ARB to reduce emissions of TAC emissions from in-use Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs) and TRU generator sets used to power electrically driven refrigerated shipping.
3.3.3 - San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District The Valley Air District is responsible for controlling emissions primarily from stationary sources. The Valley Air District, in coordination with the eight countywide transportation agencies, is also responsible for developing, updating, and implementing air quality attainment plans for the Air Basin. It also has roles under CEQA.
Ozone Plans
The Air Basin is designated nonattainment of State and federal health-based air quality standards for ozone. To meet Clean Air Act requirements for the 1-hour ozone standard, the Valley Air District adopted an Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan in 2004, with an attainment date of 2010. Although the EPA revoked the federal 1-hour ozone standard effective June 15, 2005, and replaced it with an 8-hour standard, the requirement to submit a plan for that standard remained in effect for the San Joaquin Valley.
The planning requirements for the 1-hour plan remain in effect until replaced by a federal 8-hour ozone attainment plan. The EPA approved the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan, including revisions to the plan, on March 8, 2010, effective April 7, 2010. However, the Air Basin failed to attain the standard in 2010 and was subject to a $29 million Clean Air Act penalty. The penalty is being collected through an additional $12 motor vehicle registration surcharge for each passenger vehicle registered in the Air Basin that will be applied to pollution reduction programs in the region. The Valley Air District also instituted a more robust ozone episodic program to reduce emissions on days with the potential to exceed the ozone standards. On July 18, 2016, the EPA published in the Federal Register a final action determining that the San Joaquin Valley has attained the 2476
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality
3.3-23
1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard. This determination was based on the most recent 3-year period (2012–2014) of sufficient, quality-assured, and certified data available at that time.13 The Valley Air District’s most recent 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard addresses the federal mandates related to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.14 The Valley Air District adopted the 2022 Plan for the 2015 8-hour Ozone Standard on December 15, 2022, which satisfies the Clean Air Act requirements to meet the 70 ppb 8-hour ozone standard.15 As described in the Plan, the reductions that would be achieved by the Valley Air District and the ARB strategy (72 percent reduction in NOx emissions by 2037) would ensure expeditious attainment of the 2015 8-hour ozone standard by the 2037 attainment deadline.
The EPA originally classified the Air Basin as serious nonattainment for the 1997 federal 8-hour ozone standard with an attainment date of 2013. On April 30, 2007, the Valley Air District’s Governing Board adopted the 2007 Ozone Plan, which contained analysis showing a 2013 attainment target to be infeasible. The 2007 Ozone Plan details the plan for achieving attainment on schedule with an “extreme nonattainment” deadline of 2024. At its adoption of the 2007 Ozone Plan, the Valley Air District also requested a reclassification to extreme nonattainment. The ARB approved the plan in June 2007, and the EPA approved the request for reclassification to extreme nonattainment on April 15, 2010.
The 2007 Ozone Plan contains measures to reduce ozone and particulate matter precursor emissions to bring the Air Basin into attainment with the federal 8-hour ozone standard. The 2007 Ozone Plan calls for a 75 percent reduction of NOx and a 25 percent reduction of reactive organic gases (ROG).
Figure 1 displays the anticipated NOx reductions attributed in the 2007 Ozone Plan.16 The plan, with innovative measures and a “dual path” strategy, assures expeditious attainment of the federal 8-hour ozone standard for all Air Basin residents. The Valley Air District Governing Board adopted the 2007 Ozone Plan on April 30, 2007. The ARB approved the plan on June 14, 2007. The 2007 Ozone Plan requires yet to be determined “Advanced Technology” to achieve additional reductions after 2021, in order to attain the standard at all monitoring stations in the Air Basin by 2024 as allowed for areas designated extreme nonattainment by the federal Clean Air Act.
The Air Basin is designated as an extreme ozone nonattainment area for the EPA’s 2008 8-hour ozone standard of 75 ppb. The plan to address this standard was developed for the region to attain EPA’s 2008 8-hour ozone standard by December 31, 2031.
13 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. Federal Register. Determination of Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard in the San Joaquin Valley Nonattainment Area in California. Website:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/07/18/2016-16792/determination-of-attainment-of-the-1-hour-ozone-nationalambient-air-quality-standard-in-the-san. Accessed June 1, 2023. 14 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District). 2016. 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard. June 16.
Website: http://valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/Ozone-Plan-2016.htm. Accessed June 1, 2023. 15 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District). 2022. 2022 Plan for the 8-Hour Ozone Standard. Website:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/rules-and-planning/air-quality-plans/ozone-plans/2022-ozone-plan-for-the-san-joaquin-valley/. Accessed June 1, 2023. 16 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District). 2007. 2007 Ozone Plan. Website:
www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/AQ_Final_Adopted_Ozone2007.htm. Accessed June 1, 2023. 2477
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-24
The San Joaquin Valley is classified as an “extreme” nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone standard.17 This nonattainment classification sets forth a requirement to adopt a Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) demonstration as a revision to the SIP no later than August 3, 2020. Pursuant to Sections 182(b)(2) and (f) of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA, or “the Act”), areas classified as moderate or above for ozone nonattainment are required to implement RACT requirements for sources that are subject to EPA Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) and for “major sources” of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and NOx, which are ozone precursors. These RACT requirements ensure that significant sources of emissions in nonattainment areas are controlled to a “reasonable” extent, but not necessarily to the more stringent control levels expected of new or modified major stationary sources. Preparation of the 2020 RACT Demonstration, which was adopted, included a comprehensive evaluation of all NOx and VOC District rules to ensure that each rule meets or exceeds RACT. The 2020 RACT Demonstration fulfills CAA requirements and demonstrates that all federal RACT requirements continue to be satisfied in the Valley.
State ozone standards do not have an attainment deadline but require implementation of all feasible measures to achieve attainment at the earliest date possible. This is achieved through compliance with the federal deadlines and control measure requirements.
Figure 1: San Joaquin Valley NOx Emissions Forecast
Particulate Matter Plans
The Air Basin was designated nonattainment of State and federal health-based air quality standards for PM10. The Air Basin is also designated nonattainment of State and federal standards for PM2.5.
To meet CAA requirements for the PM10 standard, the Valley Air District adopted a PM10 Attainment Demonstration Plan (amended 2003 PM10 Plan and 2006 PM10 Plan), which had an attainment date of 2010. The Valley Air District adopted the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan in September 2007 to 17 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District). 2020. 2020 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard. May 19. Website: http://www.valleyair.org/Workshops/postings/2020/06-18- 20_RACT/Final-2020-RACT-Demonstration-for-the-2015-8-Hour-Ozone-Standard.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023. 2478
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality
3.3-25
assure the San Joaquin Valley’s continued attainment of the EPA’s PM10 standard. The EPA designated the valley as an attainment/maintenance area for PM10 on September 25, 2008.
The Valley Air District’s most recent 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards develops a strategy to attain the federal health-based 1997, 2006, and 2012 NAAQS for PM2.5 as expeditiously as practicable.18 The Valley Air District’s attainment strategy builds upon comprehensive strategies already in place from previously adopted District attainment plans and measures. This plan includes aggressive incentive-based control measures that achieve the massive emissions reductions needed to bring the Valley into attainment.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules and Regulations The Valley Air District rules and regulations that are relevant to this analysis consist of the following:
Rule 4101 Visible Emissions. A person shall not discharge into the atmosphere from any single source of emission whatsoever, any air contaminant, other than uncombined water vapor, for a period or periods aggregating more than 3 minutes in any 1 hour, which is (SJVPACD, 2005):
• As darker or darker in shade as that designated as No. 1 on the Ringelmann Chart, as published by the United States Bureau of Mines.
• Of such opacity as to obscure an observer’s view to a dress equal to or greater than the smoke described in Section 5.1 of this rule.
Rule 4102 Nuisance. The purpose of this rule is to protect the health and safety of the public and it applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants or other materials.
Rule 4601 Architectural Coatings. The purpose of this rule is to limit Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) emissions from architectural coatings. Emissions are reduced by limits on VOC content and providing requirements on coatings storage, cleanup, and labeling.
Rule 4641 Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving, and Maintenance Operations.
The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from asphalt paving and maintenance operations. If asphalt paving will be used, then the paving operations will be subject to Rule 4641.
Rule 4901 Wood-Burning Fireplaces and Wood-Burning Heaters. The purposes of this rule are to limit emissions of carbon monoxide and particulate matter from wood-burning fireplaces, wood-burning heaters, and outdoor wood-burning devices, and to establish a public education program to reduce wood-burning emissions. All development that includes wood-burning devices are subject to this rule. 18 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District). 2018. 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards.
November 15. Website: https://www.valleyair.org/pmplans/documents/2018/pm-plan-adopted/2018-Plan-for-the-1997-2006-and2012-PM2.5-Standards.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023. 2479
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-26
Regulation VIII Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions. Rules 8011-8081 are designed to reduce PM10 emissions (predominantly dust/dirt) generated by human activity, including construction and demolition activities, road construction, bulk materials storage, paved and unpaved roads, carryout and trackout, etc. All development projects that involve soil disturbance are subject to at least one provision of the Regulation VIII series of rules.
Rule 9510 Indirect Source Review. This rule reduces the impact of NOx and PM10 emissions from growth within the Air Basin. The rule places application and emission reduction requirements on development projects meeting applicability criteria in order to reduce emissions through on-site mitigation, off-site District-administered projects, or a combination of the two.
California Environmental Quality Act
The Valley Air District has three potential roles under CEQA:
1. Lead Agency: Responsible for preparing environmental analyses for its own projects (adoption of rules, regulations, or plans) or permit projects filed with the Valley Air District where it has primary approval authority over the project.
2. Responsible Agency: The discretionary authority of a Responsible Agency is more limited than a Lead Agency; i.e., having responsibility for mitigating or avoiding only the environmental effects of those parts of the project over which the Responsible Agency has jurisdiction.
When the Valley Air District serves as a Responsible Agency, it defers to and relies on the Lead Agency for preparation of environmental documents for land use projects that also have discretionary air quality permits, unless no document is prepared by the Lead Agency and potentially significant impacts related to the permit are possible. The Valley District regularly submits comments on documents prepared by Lead Agencies to ensure that District concerns are addressed.
3. Commenting Agency: The Valley Air District reviews and comments on air quality analyses prepared by other public agencies.
The Valley Air District also provides guidance and thresholds for CEQA air quality and GHG analyses for purposes of Lead Agency review and use to the extent each Lead Agency elects, in its discretion, to do so. The result of this guidance, as well as State regulations to control air pollution, is an overall improvement in the Air Basin. In particular, the Valley Air District’s 2015 GAMAQI states the following:
1. The District’s Air Quality Attainment Plans include measures to promote air quality elements in county and city general plans as one of the primary indirect source programs. The general plan is the primary long-range planning document used by cities and counties to direct development. Since air districts have no authority over land use decisions, it is up to cities and counties to ensure that their general plans help achieve air quality goals. Section 65302.1 of the California Government Code requires cities and counties in the San Joaquin Valley to amend appropriate elements of their general plans to include data, analysis, comprehensive goals, policies, and feasible implementation strategies to improve air quality in their next housing element revisions.
2480
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality
3.3-27
2. The Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans (AQGGP), adopted by the District in 1994 and amended in 2005, is a guidance document containing goals and policy examples that cities and counties may want to incorporate into their General Plans to satisfy Section 65302.1.
When adopted in a general plan and implemented, the suggestions in the AQGGP can reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled and improve air quality. The specific suggestions in the AQGGP are voluntary. The District strongly encourages cities and counties to use their land use and transportation planning authority to help achieve air quality goals by adopting the suggested policies and programs.
3.3.4 - Local
City of Visalia General Plan
The City of Visalia (City) is the local government with the authority over land use decisions for purposes of the proposed project. The City adopted an updated General Plan on October 14, 2014.19 The relevant air quality goals, objectives, and policies from the City’s General Plan for purposes of this analysis are listed below.
Chapter 7: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
Objectives
AQ-O-1 Coordinate air quality planning efforts with other local, regional and State agencies.
AQ-O-2 Strive to improve air quality by implementing emissions reduction efforts targeting mobile sources, stationary sources and construction- related sources.
Policies
AQ-P-1 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to prohibit locating new “sensitive receptor” uses— hospitals, residential care facilities and child care facilities—within 500 feet of a limited access State Highway (SR-99 and SR-198), except as provided by approved master plans.
AQ-P-2 Require use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce particulate emission as a condition of approval for all subdivisions, development plans and grading permits, in conformance with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Fugitive.
AQ-P-3 Support implementation of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s regulations on the use of wood-burning fireplaces, as well as their regulations for the installation of EPA-certified wood heaters or approved wood-burning appliances in new residential development and a “No Burn” policy on days when the air quality is poor.
19 City of Visalia. 2014. City of Visalia General Plan. October. Website:
https://www.visalia.city/depts/community_development/planning/gp.asp. Accessed June 1, 2023. 2481
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-28
AQ-P-4 Support the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s “change-out” program, which provides incentives to help homeowners replace old word-burning fireplaces with EPA-certified non-wood-burning appliances.
AQ-P-5 When asbestos has been identified in the preliminary soils report, require all new development and public works projects to comply with all provisions of State and regional ATCM regulations for control of airborne asbestos emissions relating to construction, road maintenance, and grading activities.
AQ-P-6 Amend the Street Tree Ordinance to promote use of plants and trees that are efficient pollutant absorbers.
AQ-P-7 Be an active partner with the Air District in its “Spare the Air” program. Encourage businesses and residents to avoid pollution-producing activities such as the use of fireplaces and wood stoves, charcoal lighter fluid, pesticides, aerosol products, oilbased paints, and automobiles and other gasoline engines on days when high ozone levels are expected, and promote low emission vehicles and alternatives to driving.
AQ-P-8 Update the Zoning Ordinance to strictly limit the development of drive-through facilities, only allowing them in auto-oriented areas and prohibiting them in Downtown and East Downtown.
AQ-P-9 Continue to mitigate short-term construction impacts and long-term stationary source impacts on air quality on a case-by-case basis and continue to assess air quality impacts through environmental review. Require developers to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce air pollutant emissions associated with the construction and operation of development projects.
BMPs include transportation demand management strategies for large development projects such as:
• Providing bicycle access and parking facilities;
• Providing preferential parking for high-occupancy vehicles, carpools, or alternative fuels vehicles;
• Establishing telecommuting programs or satellite work centers; • Allowing alternative work schedules;
• Subsidizing public transit costs for employee;
• Scheduling Deliveries at off-peak traffic periods; and • Providing recharge stations for plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs).
AQ-P-10 Develop public information regarding high- and low-pollen producing landscape species, to be made available at City Hall and other relevant locations throughout the City. Work with Chamber of Commerce, local landscape architects, nursery contractors, and arborists to promote landscaping with low-pollen plants. 2482
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality
3.3-29
AQ-P-11 Continue to work in conjunction with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District and others to put in place additional Transportation Control Measures that will reduce vehicle travel and improve air quality and to implement Air Quality Plans.
3.3.5 - Methodology
Regional air pollutant emissions are composed of those on-site and off-site construction and operational emissions generated from all components of the proposed project. Air pollutant emissions can be estimated by using emission factors and a level of activity. Emission factors represent the emission rate of a pollutant over a given time or activity for example, grams of NOX per vehicle mile traveled or grams of NOX per horsepower hour of equipment operation. The activity factor is a measure of how active a piece of equipment is and can be represented as the amount of material processed, elapsed time that a piece of equipment is in operation, horsepower of a piece of equipment used, the amount of fuel consumed in a given amount of time, or VMT per day. The ARB has published emission factors for on-road mobile vehicles/trucks in the Emission Factor (EMFAC) mobile source emissions model and emission factors for off-road equipment and vehicles in the OFFROAD emissions model. An air emissions model (or calculator) combines the emission factors and the levels of activity and outputs the emissions for the various pieces of equipment.
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) was developed in cooperation with the SCAQMD, the Valley Air District, and other air districts throughout the State. CalEEMod is designed as a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and GHG emissions associated with construction and operation from a variety of land uses. The current version of CalEEMod, Version 2022.1.1.20 was in soft release by the time of the analysis and had experienced several issues. Therefore, CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0, which is still accepted by the Valley Air District at the time of the analysis, was utilized for the Air Quality, GHG, and energy analyses.
3.3.6 - Thresholds of Significance
The lead agency utilizes the criteria in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist to determine whether impacts to air quality are significant environmental effects. Would the project:
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
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 nonattainment 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?
2483
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-30
Approach to Analysis
Construction-related Criteria Pollutants
Construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of operation, and prevailing weather conditions. Construction emissions result from onsite and off-site activities. On-site emissions principally consist of exhaust emissions from the activity levels of heavy-duty construction equipment, motor vehicle operation, and fugitive dust (mainly PM10) from disturbed soil. Additionally, paving operations and application of architectural coatings would release VOC emissions. Off-site emissions are caused by motor vehicle exhaust from delivery vehicles, worker traffic, hauling truck trips associated with grading activity, and road dust (PM10 and PM2.5).
Construction activities would consist of site preparation, grading, demolition, building construction, paving, and architectural coating of the inside and outside of the buildings. In addition, construction activity would include off-site improvements to adjacent roadways improve curbs, gutters, sidewalks that would include paving and architectural coating activities. Demolition activity would occur onsite to remove the existing small outbuildings used for agricultural purposes.20 For each construction activity, the construction equipment operating hours and numbers represent the average equipment activity over the duration of the activity. A conceptual construction schedule is provided in Table
3.3-6 that presents the duration for each construction activity. Table 3.3-7 presents the number of assumed construction equipment along with assumed hours of operation per day, horsepower, and load factor. Where project-specific information was not available or unknown, CalEEMod default assumptions were used to complete emissions modeling. The activity for construction equipment is based on the horsepower and load factors of the equipment. In general, the horsepower is the power of an engine—the greater the horsepower, the greater the power. The load factor is the average power of a given piece of equipment while in operation compared with its maximum rated horsepower. A load factor of 1.0 indicates that a piece of equipment continually operates at its maximum operating capacity. This analysis uses the CalEEMod default load factors for off-road equipment.
The anticipated construction schedule, as shown in Table3.3-6, reflects the construction start date and construction phase durations estimated by the project applicant. The start date of the construction schedule used in the analysis represents a reasonable “worst-case” analysis scenario since emission factors for construction equipment decrease as the analysis year increases, due to improvements in technology and compliance with more stringent regulatory requirements.
Therefore, construction emissions would decrease if the construction schedule moved to later years.
In order to evaluate a reasonable “worst-case” scenario, CalEEMod default phase lengths and construction equipment were used for the site preparation and grading activities. In addition, the site preparation and grading phases were assumed to start at the beginning of construction and occur across the entire approximately 284-acre project site during other phase(s) of activity. The 20 Note: Demolition activity would result in approximately 49 cubic yards of debris that would result in hauling truck trips. As shown in Appendix B, specifically the demolition debris calculation, the associated emissions from demolition has been accounted for in the modeling.
2484
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality
3.3-31
duration of construction activity and associated equipment represent a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required by CEQA.
Schedule
Table 3.3-6: Conceptual Construction Schedule
Construction Activity
Conceptual Construction Schedule
Working Days
per Week Working Days
Start Date
(approx.)
End Date
(approx.)
On-Site Construction
Site Preparation and Grading for the Entire Project Site Demolition 3/14/2024 4/24/2024 5 30
Site Preparation 3/14/2024 11/20/2024 5 180
Grading 11/21/2024 9/2/2026 5 465
Phase 1
Building Construction 3/14/2024 3/14/2025 5 262
Paving 3/14/2024 1/15/2025 5 220
Architectural Coating 5/10/2024 3/13/2025 5 220
Phase 2
Building Construction 9/12/2025 9/12/2026 5 261
Paving 9/12/2025 12/25/2025 5 75
Architectural Coating 6/1/2026 9/11/2026 5 75
Phase 3
Building Construction 3/12/2027 3/12/2028 5 261
Paving 3/12/2027 8/12/2027 5 110
Architectural Coating 10/1/2027 3/10/2028 5 110
Off-Site Improvements
Paving 3/14/2024 4/10/2024 5 20
Architectural Coating 4/11/2024 5/8/2024 5 20
Source: CalEEMod Output of Appendix B.
On-site Off-road Equipment
A summary of the on-site, off-road construction equipment usage assumptions used to estimate emissions is presented below.
2485
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-32
Table 3.3-7: Project Construction Equipment Assumptions Construction Activity Equipment
Equipment
Amount
Average
Hours per
day Horsepower
Load
Factor
Site Preparation and Grading for the Entire Project Site Demolition Concrete Industrial Saws 1 8 81 0.73
Excavators 3 8 158 0.38
Rubber Tired Bulldozers 2 8 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Bulldozers 3 8 247 0.40
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 2 8 158 0.38
Graders 1 8 187 0.41
Rubber Tired Bulldozers 1 8 247 0.40
Scrapers 2 8 367 0.48
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 97 0.37
Phase 1
Off-Site Improvements
(Paving)
Pavers 2 8 130 0.42
Rollers 2 8 80 0.38
Paving Equipment 2 8 132 0.36
Off-Site Improvements
(Architectural Coating)
Air Compressors 1 6 78 0.48
Building Construction 1,2 Cranes 12 6.9 231 0.29
Forklifts 32 8.9 89 0.20
Generator Sets 12 7.9 84 0.74
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 32 7.8 97 0.37
Welders 12 7.9 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8 130 0.42
Paving Equipment 2 8 132 0.36
Rollers 2 8 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6 78 0.48
Phase 2
Building Construction 1,2 Cranes 4 7.4 231 0.29
Forklifts 12 8.5 89 0.20
Generator Sets 4 8.5 84 0.74
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 12 7.4 97 0.37
Welders 4 8.5 46 0.45
2486
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality
3.3-33
Construction Activity Equipment
Equipment
Amount
Average
Hours per
day Horsepower
Load
Factor
Paving Pavers 2 8 130 0.42
Paving Equipment 2 8 132 0.36
Rollers 2 8 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6 78 0.48
Phase 3
Building Construction1,2 Cranes 6 6.9 231 0.29
Forklifts 18 7.9 89 0.20
Generator Sets 6 7.9 84 0.74
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 16 7.8 97 0.37
Welders 6 7.9 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8 130 0.42
Paving Equipment 2 8 132 0.36
Rollers 2 8 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6 78 0.48
Notes:
1 Default values for construction equipment usage hours were adjusted to match the CalEEMod default total grading horsepower hours. When the default schedule is changed in CalEEMod, the usage hours do not adjust accordingly.
Therefore, because the default construction schedule was adjusted to match the project-specific anticipated construction schedule, the construction equipment was adjusted to retain the CalEEMod default totals. 2 Default values for construction equipment usage hours were adjusted to match the CalEEMod default total building construction horsepower hours.
Source: CalEEMod Output of Appendix B.
Demolition, Site Preparation, and Grading
A summary of the construction-related vehicle trips is shown in Table 3.3-8. During demolition, approximately 1,065 square feet of existing outbuildings and foundations would be removed. During project grading, it is expected that approximately 130,000 cubic yards of fill would be imported to the project site; the remaining cut and fill is expected to balance on-site. CalEEMod default values for trip lengths and vehicle fleets were used. Note that the total number of off-site construction vehicle trips would not necessarily occur on the same day, since construction activities would vary each day during the construction period.
Off-site On-road Vehicle Trips
Table 3.3-8: Construction Off-site Trips
Construction Activity
Worker
(Approx. trips per day)
Vendor
(Approx. trips per day)
Haul
(Approx. total trips)
Demolition, Site Preparation, and Grading for the Entire Project Site Demolition 15 0 5
2487
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-34
Construction Activity
Worker
(Approx. trips per day)
Vendor
(Approx. trips per day)
Haul
(Approx. total trips)
Site Preparation 18 0 0
Grading 20 0 16,250
Phase 1
Building Construction 2,159 842 0
Paving 15 0 0
Architectural Coating 432 0 0
Phase 2
Building Construction 1,207 471 0
Paving 15 0 0
Architectural Coating 241 0 0
Phase 3
Building Construction 1,518 592 0
Paving 15 0 0
Architectural Coating 304 0 0
Off-site Improvements Only
Paving 15 0 0
Architectural Coating 50 0 0
Source: CalEEMod Output of Appendix B.
Fugitive Dust
Airborne dust is a substantial component of the elevated PM10 concentrations in the San Joaquin Valley. Excavation, demolition, grading, unvegetated surfaces exposed to wind, material handling, material storage piles, and vehicle travel on paved and unpaved surfaces all can be sources of substantial fugitive dust emissions if not properly managed or maintained.
Dust would be generated within the entire project site and at off-site locations along the areas proposed for project-related infrastructure improvements. To avoid increased adverse health effects from new construction-related PM10 and to address significant nuisance concerns (if any), such as visible clouds of dust and soiling of exposed surfaces, the Valley Air District oversees an extensive set of rules in Regulation VIII. All aspects of the proposed project would be required to comply with the applicable Valley Air District rules. The CalEEMod construction modeling runs include fugitive dust control measures as limiting on-site speed limits to 15 miles per hour (mph) and watering the project site twice per day, consistent with the foregoing rules.
Operation-related Criteria Pollutants
The major sources of operational emissions that would occur over the long-term operations of the proposed project are summarized below.
2488
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality
3.3-35
On-road Motor Vehicles
Motor vehicle emissions refer to exhaust and road dust emissions from the motor vehicles that would travel to and from and within the project site. The regional emissions from the proposed project’s mobile sources were estimated using CalEEMod. The proposed project would primarily generate passenger vehicle trips from employees and visitors traveling to and from the project site; however, the proposed project would also be served with daily truck deliveries. An estimate of the number of vehicle trips that the proposed project would generate was presented in the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project Trip Generation tables prepared by Kimley-Horn for the proposed project, as shown in Table 3.3-9.
Table 3.3-9: Vehicle Trip Generation During Operations
Vehicle Type
Actual passenger vehicles/trucks
(trips per day)
PCE1
(trips per day)
Passenger Vehicles 19,375 19,375
Trucks 2,034 4,068
Total Project Trips 21,409 23,443
Note:
PCE = Passenger Car Equivalent
1 PCE = 2.0 per City of Visalia Guidance
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates. Transportation Impact Analysis for Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park. September 2023.
The trip summary shown above includes trips from both passenger vehicles and trucks. The trip generation prepared for the proposed project estimates that trips from passenger vehicles would account for approximately 19,375 of the approximately 21,409 total daily actual trips generated by the proposed project, while trucks would account for approximately 2,034 of the total daily actual trips generated by the proposed project.
Light industrial land use projects, including warehouse, storage, and distribution projects such as the one at hand, can be expected to have longer than average truck trip lengths compared to the default trip lengths in CalEEMod (7.3 miles to 9.5 miles for urban areas of Tulare County). This is because the goods that the warehouses would store and distribute often come from major ports, such as the Port of Long Beach or Oakland. Therefore, to ensure an appropriately conservative analysis, to estimate mobile source emissions from trucks during project operations, a one-way truck trip length of 50 miles was assumed based on recommendations from the Valley Air District for industrial projects.
To apply a longer trip length for trucks and to show a clear breakdown of emissions, modeling of the proposed project’s operations was split into two separate CalEEMod runs: (1) area-source emissions, energy-source emissions, and passenger vehicle mobile source emissions, and (2) truck mobile source emissions. The vehicle types in the first operational run were adjusted so that only passenger vehicles were represented. Since there are various types of passenger vehicles included in CalEEMod, the CalEEMod default fleet mix for Tulare County was used as the basis for the determining the passenger car fleet mix used in the first operational year. The number of daily operational vehicle trips used to 2489
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-36
estimate emissions were the actual daily trip presented in Table 3.3-9, consistent with those presented in the project-specific trip generation estimate.
Emission factors were assigned to the expected vehicle mix as a function of vehicle age, vehicle class, speed, and fuel type. The operational fleet mix applied in each operational run are noted in Table
3.3-10.
Table 3.3-10: Vehicle Type Classification–Individual Project Runs CalEEMod Run Classification Fleet Mix Applied in Modeling Passenger Vehicles (employee trips) LDA 57.2%
LDT1 5.7%
LDT2 18.5%
MDV 18.6%
Passenger Vehicle Mix Total 100%
Trucks HHDT 100%
Notes:
HHDT = Heavy Heavy-Duty Truck
LDA = Light-Duty Auto
LDT = Light-Duty Truck
MDV = Medium-Duty Vehicle
Source: CalEEMod Output of Appendix B.
Other Emission Sources
Area Sources
In addition to typical mobile- and energy-source emissions, long-term operational emissions also include area-source emissions. Area-source emissions include occasional architectural coating activities for repainting and maintenance of the buildings associated with the proposed project.
CalEEMod assumes that repainting occurs at a rate of 10 percent of the buildings per year. Therefore, on average, it is assumed that the buildings would be fully repainted every 10 years.
Other area-source emissions include consumer products that involve solvents that emit VOCs during use. CalEEMod includes default consumer product use rates based on building square footage. In addition, CalEEMod default emission factors for landscape maintenance equipment were used in this analysis.
Indirect Emissions
For GHG emissions, CalEEMod contains calculations to estimate indirect GHG emissions. Indirect emissions are emissions where the location of consumption or activity is different from where actual emissions are generated. For example, electricity would be consumed at the project site as a result of the proposed project; however, emissions associated with producing that electricity to serve the proposed project are generated off-site at a power plant. 2490
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality
3.3-37
CalEEMod includes calculations for indirect GHG emissions for electricity consumption, water consumption, and solid waste disposal. For water consumption, CalEEMod calculates embedded energy (e.g., treatment, conveyance, distribution) associated with providing each gallon of potable water to the proposed project. For solid waste disposal, CalEEMod calculates GHG emissions generated as solid waste generated by the proposed project decomposes in a landfill.
For electricity-related emissions, CalEEMod contains default electricity intensity factors for various utilities throughout California. The CalEEMod default emissions factors were used for SCE for purposes of this analysis.
Refrigerants
During project operation, it is reasonable to assume there may be leakages of refrigerants (hydrofluorocarbons) from air conditioners and any refrigeration systems. Hydrofluorocarbons are typically used for refrigerants, which are long-lived GHGs. The proposed project does not include a cold storage facility. Therefore, any leakage of refrigerants associated with an unrefrigerated industrial building is expected to be minor; thus, because they would be nominal (at most) and would otherwise be speculative to approximate, they were not included in this analysis.
Vegetation
The project site contains mature trees, and therefore there is currently some carbon sequestration occurring on-site. The proposed project would involve some tree removal, but would also involve the planting of trees and integration of ample landscaping into the project design as described in Project Description, which would also provide carbon sequestration. However, the number of trees to be planted is unknown and data are insufficient to accurately determine the impact that the existing landscaping has on carbon sequestration. For this analysis, it was assumed that the loss and addition of carbon sequestration that are due to the proposed project would be balanced given the number of trees to be removed as compared to the number of trees and other landscaping to be incorporated into the proposed project pursuant to the City’s applicable tree preservation policies; therefore, emissions due to carbon sequestration were not calculated.
An air dispersion model is a mathematical formulation used to estimate air quality impacts at specific locations (receptors) surrounding a source of emissions given the rate of emissions and prevailing meteorological conditions. The air dispersion model applied in this assessment was the EPA American Meteorological Society Regulatory Model (AERMOD), Version 22112, which is approved by the Valley Air District for air dispersion assessments. The AERMOD model provides a refined methodology for estimating localized construction and operational impacts by utilizing longterm, measured representative meteorological data for the project site and representative construction and operational schedules.
Terrain elevations were obtained for the project site using the AERMAP model, the AERMOD terrain data pre-processor. The urban dispersion option was used to describe air dispersion in the local vicinity of the project site. The air dispersion model assessment was performed using meteorological data from the Visalia Station (Station 93144), which is located approximately 2.95 miles southwest of the project site.
2491
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-38
3.3.7 - Air Dispersion Modeling–Construction
The AERMOD model was used to estimate levels of air emissions at sensitive receptor locations from project construction PM10 exhaust emissions. Receptor locations within the AERMOD model were placed at locations of existing residences surrounding the project site because these would be the closest sensitive receptors near the project site. Although Denton Elementary School would be located 2,300 feet to the southeast, receptor locations were not included at this elementary school because residential receptors located much closer to the project site would present a conservative analysis. To evaluate the proposed project’s localized construction impacts, sensitive receptor height were considered at the point of maximum impact. All sensitive receptors were placed within the breathing zone at zero meters above ground level.
The on-site construction area sources were assumed to cover the entire project site. Emissions from the on-site construction exhaust source were assumed to be emitted at 5 meters above ground to account for the top of equipment exhaust stacks where emissions are released to the atmosphere and the increase in emission height due to its heated exhaust. The on-road construction vehicle emissions were represented in the AERMOD model as line volume sources with a release height of
10.2 feet (3.1 meters) for diesel vehicles.
3.3.8 - Air Dispersion Modeling–Operation
Each operational emission source to be evaluated requires geometrical and emission release specifications for use in the air dispersion model. The emission source configurations applied in this assessment are shown in Table 3.3-11. Note, most passenger vehicles are gasoline powered and would not be a significant source of DPM emissions.
Table 3.3-11: Summary of Operational Diesel Emission Source Configurations Emission Source
Type Configuration Relevant Assumptions
On-site Truck
Traffic
Area Source
(Sitewide)
• Area Source with vertical height accounting for exhaust from trucks over various roadway paths to buildings across entire facility • Vehicle Speed: 0-15 mph
• Vehicle types: Heavy Heavy-Duty (HHDT) delivery trucks • Emission factors: EMFAC2021
On-site Truck
Idling
Line Volume and
Point Sources
• Stack release height: 3.8 meters
• Idle Instances: 20 minutes total
–Truck/Docking and Parking Areas: 50 percent of idling time –Entrance Gate Areas: 50 percent of idling time
–Vehicle type: HHDT delivery trucks
• Idle Emission rates (g/idle-hour)
• Emission factors: EMFAC2021-PL
Off-site Truck
Traffic
Line Volume Sources • Truck travel was estimated for project-generated off-site travel within approximately 1,000 feet of the project site.
• Three travel links from the project to outlying areas were identified based on the truck travel distribution provided in the projectspecific traffic report, and emissions were estimated along each travel link.
2492
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality
3.3-39
Emission Source
Type Configuration Relevant Assumptions
• Vehicle speeds: 0 mph to 25 mph aggregated
• Emission factors: EMFAC2021.
Facility
Operations
Project • Trucking operations: 24 hours per day/365 days per year Appendix B: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Report.
Given the proposed gas station, the analysis took into account specific emissions associated with this type of use. The primary routine emission sources at gasoline service stations are classified into five categories of loading, breathing, fueling, spillage, and hose permeation and are described in Table
3.3-12.
Table 3.3-12: Categories of Emissions at Retail Gasoline Service Stations Emission Source Description Controls
Loading Loading losses occur when Fuel Tanker Trucks makes delivery to gas stations. Gasoline vapor emissions occur as gas enters the underground storage tanks.
Phase I Enhanced Vapor
Recovery (EVR)
Breathing Breathing emissions occur during periods of low activity or inactivity. Temperature changes inside the underground storage tank can cause gasoline vapor pressures to increase above pressure limit for the tank and excess pressure is released via a gas station vent pipe in the form of gasoline vapor emissions.
Phase II EVR
Fueling Fueling emissions occur at the gas pump during vehicle fueling– gasoline vapors are emitted from the space due to a poor seal between the nozzle and the vehicle.
On-Board Refueling
Vapor Recovery (ORVR)
systems
Phase II EVR Nozzles
Spillage Generated from dispensing nozzle spillage of liquid gasoline during the act of vehicle fueling, including pre-fueling, fueling and post-fueling spillage. While emissions from all other mechanisms are in the form of vapors, spillage losses are in liquid form.
Phase II EVR “Dripless”
Nozzles
Hose
Permeation
Emissions occur from the fueling hoses at the gas pumps.
Gasoline vapors can pass through (or permeate) the fuel delivery hoses.
Low Permeation Hoses
Factors influencing emissions include annual and hourly throughput and the type of tank (above or underground) and the vapor controls on the underground gasoline storage tanks and during vehicle fueling. Emissions also depend on the percentage of vehicles fueling at the station that are equipped with On-Board Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) systems. Modern retail gas stations, such as the proposed project, almost exclusively use underground storage tank designs with ARB certified Phase I and Phase II Enhanced Vapor Recovery (EVR) Systems. The percentage of ORVR is not a feature of gas stations but of the vehicle fleet in California. ORVR systems were required in automobiles 2493
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-40
manufactured in model year 2000 and after and represent the majority, but not all, of vehicles at retail service stations. It has been projected for year 2018 that 83 percent of gasoline was dispensed to vehicles with ORVR installed, and the remaining 17 percent gasoline was dispensed to cars without ORVR and with fueling losses controlled by Phase II EVR Nozzles.21 Odors
The proposed project would generate odors during construction from the operation of heavy equipment, the burning of diesel fuels, the generation of dust, and from other construction activities. During operation, the proposed project would generate odors from the operation of fossilfuel powered vehicles, such as trucks and passenger vehicles, as well as from the fast food land uses.
Specific Thresholds of Significance
CEQA defines, generally, a significant effect on the environment as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.” To determine whether a project would have a significant impact on air quality, the type, level, and impact of emissions generated by the proposed project must be evaluated pursuant to the applicable specific thresholds identified by Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (see below).
While the final determination of whether a project is significant is within the purview of the Lead Agency pursuant to Section 15064(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the Valley Air District recommends that its quantitative air pollution thresholds be used to determine the significance of project emissions. The City, as the Lead Agency, has elected in its discretion to utilize the foregoing thresholds, as detailed further below.
This analysis uses the air quality significance thresholds contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, effective December 28, 2018. A significant impact would occur if the proposed project would:
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 nonattainment 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.
As noted above, the City has elected to utilize the applicable Valley Air District thresholds and methodologies, which are contained under each impact statement below.
3.3.9 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where appropriate. The following analyses are based on the Air 21 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2013. Attachment 1–Revised Emission Factors for Phase II Vehicle Fueling at California Gas Dispensing Facilities. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/gasoline-dispensing-facility-emission-factors. Accessed January 6, 2023. 2494
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality
3.3-41
Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Analysis Report (reference as Air Quality Report herein), which is included in Appendix B.
Consistency with Air Quality Management Plan
Impact AIR-1: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Impact Analysis
In accordance with relevant Valley Air District thresholds and methodologies, this evaluation utilizes the following criteria for determining project consistency with the current Air Quality Plan (AQP):
1. Will the proposed project support the primary goals of the AQP?
2. Will the proposed project comply with applicable control measures in the AQP?
3. Will the proposed project disrupt or hinder implementation of any AQP control measures? The use of the criteria listed above is a standard approach for CEQA analysis of projects in the Valley Air District’s jurisdiction, as well as within other air districts, for the following reasons:
• Significant contribution to existing or new exceedances of the air quality standards would be inconsistent with the goal of attaining the air quality standards. • AQP emissions inventories and attainment modeling are based on growth assumptions for the area within the Valley Air District’s jurisdiction.
• AQPs rely on a set of air district initiated control measures as well as implementation of federal and State measures to reduce emissions within their jurisdictions, with the goal of attaining the air quality standards.
AQPs are plans for reaching attainment of air quality standards. The assumptions, inputs, and control measures are analyzed to determine whether the Air Basin can reach attainment for the ambient air quality standards. In order to show attainment of the standards, the Valley Air District analyzes the growth projections in the valley, contributing factors in air pollutant emissions and formations, and existing and adopted emissions controls. The Valley Air District then formulates a control strategy to reach attainment that includes both State and District regulations and other local programs and measures.
Criterion 1
A method for determining consistency with the AQP’s assumptions is determining consistency with the applicable General Plan’s growth projections to ensure that the proposed project’s population density, intensity, and land uses are consistent with the growth assumptions used in the AQP for the Air Basin.
The development of emission burdens used in the AQP to demonstrate compliance with ambient air quality standards is based, in part, on land use patterns established within local general plans.
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that if a project is consistent with the applicable general plan land use designation(s), and the general plan was adopted prior to the applicable AQP, then the 2495
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-42
growth of VMT and/or population generated by said project would be consistent with the growth in VMT and population assumed within the AQP. The applicable General Plan in this case is the City of Visalia General Plan.
The project site is designated as Industrial and Light Industrial22 according to the City of Visalia General Plan and zoned County Area according to the City of Visalia Zoning Ordinance. The Light Industrial designation is intended for light manufacturing, warehousing, storage, distribution, research and development enterprises, and secondary office (limited customer access) uses. The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for this designation is 0.5. The Industrial designation allows uses such as primary manufacturing, processing, refining, and similar activities, including those with outdoor facilities. It also accommodates warehousing and distribution with supporting commercial services (such as drive-thru restaurants, gas stations, self storage, and car washes) and office space. General retail uses such as clothing shops are not permitted.23 The maximum FAR for this designation is 0.6.
The project site is currently adjacent to but outside of City limits; accordingly, as part of the initial project entitlements, the applicant is seeking pre-zoning of the project site from the City to “Industrial” and “Light Industrial.” Upon annexation into the City, the project site’s Industrial and Light Industrial pre-zoning would become the effective zoning for the project site. The proposed project would result in a total FAR of 0.30.
24 As a result, the proposed project would involve the type of land uses contemplated by the City’s General Plan and would be within the allowable FAR ratio required under and assumed by the City General Plan’s relevant land use designations. In addition, according to the Visalia Zoning Ordinance, Table 17.25.030 the proposed project’s objective of providing an automated car wash and fast food restaurant with a drive through would be allowed with a conditional use permit and the self storage and fueling station uses would be permitted by right as part of the Zoning Designation.
Furthermore, with approval of the requested Conditional Use Permits (CUP) for the convenience store, drive-thru lanes, and certain lot sizes set forth in the proposed development plan, the proposed project would not have the potential to conflict with the contemplated land use vision and thus assumed growth projections for the project site.
As such, the proposed project would be consistent with the growth projections assumed in the City’s General Plan and thus the relevant AQP, and thus would not result in any unplanned growth and associated emissions. Therefore, the proposed project’s impacts would not be found significant regarding this criterion.
Criterion 2
The AQP contains a number of control measures, which are enforceable requirements through the adoption of rules and regulations. A detailed description of rules and regulations that would apply to the proposed project is provided in Section 3.3.2, Regulatory Framework. For example, the proposed project would be subject to Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions and Rule 9510—Indirect 22 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan Land Use Element. Website:
https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30474. Accessed June 1, 2023. 23 City of Visalia. Zoning Code, Table 17.25.030. Website: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/visalia/latest/visalia_ca/0-0-0- 34305#JD_Chapter17.22. Accessed April 6, 2023. 24 Calculation: (total building area/total site area) = 83.14 acres of building area/280 acres = 0.296 or 0.30. 2496
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality
3.3-43
Source Review. In order to comply with Regulation VIII, the proposed project would be required to control fugitive dust by watering actively disturbed areas with water twice per day and covering all transport and hauling vehicles to reduce dust emissions. The proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable District rules and regulations through the issuance of applicable permits and applications and otherwise would be subject to District oversight pursuant to the applicable regulatory framework. Furthermore, consistency with the City of Visalia General Plan Policy AQ-P-2 would require the proposed project to implement applicable measures outlined in Regulation VIII.
Therefore, the proposed project complies with this criterion and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality attainment plan for this criterion.
Criterion 3
A measure of determining whether the proposed project is consistent with the AQP is as follows: if the proposed project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQP, then the impact would be less than significant.
However, because of the region’s nonattainment status for ozone, PM2.5, and PM10, if projectgenerated emissions of either of the ozone precursor pollutants (ROG and/or NOx), PM10, or PM2.5 would exceed the Valley Air District’s applicable significance thresholds, then the proposed project would be considered to disrupt or hinder implementation of the relevant AQP control measures designed to attain the relevant air quality standards and thus would be in conflict with the attainment plans.
As discussed in Impact AIR-2 below, annual emissions of ROG, PM10, and PM2.5 associated with the construction of the proposed project would not exceed the Valley Air District’s applicable significance thresholds after incorporation of mitigation. However, emissions of NOX would exceed the Valley Air District’s localized significance thresholds even after implementation of identified feasible mitigation.
Also as discussed in Impact AIR-2, operation of the proposed project would have the potential to exceed regional significance thresholds for ROG, PM10, and NOX, and would have the potential to result in a violation of localized standards, even after incorporation of feasible mitigation. In addition, as shown in Impact AIR-2, the proposed project could result in maximum daily CO emissions that would violate applicable CO standards. However, the proposed project would not result in a CO hotspot as determined in Impact AIR-2.
Therefore, the proposed project has the potential to exceed applicable Valley Air District significance thresholds during construction and operation even after incorporation of the identified feasible mitigation. Thus, project impacts in this regard would remain significant and unavoidable.
Accordingly, the proposed project would not comply with this criterion and therefore would be considered to disrupt or hinder implementation of AQP control measures designed to attain relevant air quality standards.
2497
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-44
Impact Summary
The proposed project is consistent with the applicable growth assumptions within the AQP; therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact based on this criterion.
In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with the applicable AQP control measures; therefore, the proposed project would be less than significant for this criterion. However, given that the Air Basin is in nonattainment for certain criteria pollutants, the proposed project would be considered to conflict with or otherwise obstruct implementation of AQP because certain construction and operational emissions would exceed applicable thresholds even after implementation of feasible mitigation, thereby disrupting or hindering implementation of the AQP control measures designed to attain relevant air quality standards; therefore, the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts for this criterion.
Mitigation Measures
Implement MM AIR-2a through MM AIR-2g (see Impact AIR-2).
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Significant and Unavoidable
Cumulative Criteria Pollutant Emissions Impacts
Impact AIR-2: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard?
Impact Analysis
Regional Emissions
Air pollutant emissions have regional effects and localized effects. This portion of the analysis assesses the regional effects of the proposed project’s criteria pollutant emissions in comparison to applicable Valley Air District thresholds of significance for short-term construction activities and long-term operation of the proposed project.
The primary pollutants of concern during project construction and operation are ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. The Valley Air District GAMAQI adopted in 2015 contains thresholds for CO, NOx, ROG, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5, which are being utilized here to assess the significance of the proposed project’s impacts in this regard.25
Ozone is a secondary pollutant that can be formed miles 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 Air Basin often exceeds the State and national ozone standards. Therefore, if the proposed project would emit a substantial quantity of ozone precursors, it may contribute to an exceedance of the ozone standard. The Air Basin also exceeds air quality standards for PM10, and PM2.5; therefore, substantial project emissions may contribute to an exceedance for these pollutants 25 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. 2498
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality
3.3-45
as well. The Valley Air District’s annual emission significance thresholds used for this analysis define the substantial contribution for both operational and construction emissions as follows:
• 100 tons per year CO
• 10 tons per year NOx
• 10 tons per year ROG
• 27 tons per year SOx
• 15 tons per year PM10
• 15 tons per year PM2.5
Construction Emissions
The proposed project’s unmitigated construction emissions are shown for all years of construction, the years 2024 through 2028 in Table 3.3-13, which represent a reasonable construction scenario. It should be noted that unmitigated construction emissions incorporate the basic dust control measures required under District Rule 8021, which requires that vehicle speeds on unpaved roads and surfaces be reduced to no more than 15 miles per hour and exposed construction areas are watered at a minimum twice per day during earthmoving activities. The CalEEMod considers these basic dust control measures as “mitigation measures”; however, they are required for all construction activity in the Valley Air District and thus are considered as a project design requirement for the proposed project. For further information regarding the assumptions used in estimating these emissions, please refer to Section 3.3.3, Methodology and the Air Quality Report.
Table 3.3-13: Construction Air Pollutant Emissions (Unmitigated) Year
Emissions (approximate tons per year)1
ROG NOx CO SOX
PM10
(Exhaust)
PM2.5
(Exhaust)
2024 Construction
On-site
Demolition 0.03 0.31 0.30 <0.01 0.01 0.01
Site Preparation 0.24 2.45 1.69 <0.01 0.11 0.10
Grading 0.05 0.53 0.42 <0.01 0.02 0.02
Building Construction 2.64 21.11 26.84 0.07 0.79 0.75
Paving 0.20 1.00 1.57 <0.01 0.05 0.05
Architectural Coating 3.95 0.18 1.06 <0.01 0.01 0.01
Off-site Improvements
Paving 0.03 0.10 0.15 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Architectural Coating 0.13 0.01 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
2024 Construction Subtotal 7.28 25.69 32.06 0.08 1.00 0.94 2025 Construction
Grading 0.40 4.22 3.62 0.01 0.15 0.14
2499
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-46
Year
Emissions (approximate tons per year)1
ROG NOx CO SOX
PM10
(Exhaust)
PM2.5
(Exhaust)
Building Construction 1.01 8.04 10.69 0.03 0.27 0.25
Paving 0.11 0.37 0.64 0.01 0.02 0.01
Architectural Coating 1.22 0.05 0.31 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
2025 Construction Subtotal 2.74 12.68 15.25 0.04 0.44 0.41 2026 Construction
Grading 0.27 2.83 2.42 0.01 0.10 0.09
Building Construction 0.87 6.90 9.10 0.03 0.22 0.21
Architectural Coating 2.41 0.06 0.26 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
2026 Construction Subtotal 3.55 9.78 11.78 0.04 0.32 0.30 2027 Construction
Building Construction 1.33 10.80 14.05 0.04 0.35 0.33
Paving 0.05 0.47 0.82 <0.01 0.02 0.02
Architectural Coating 1.47 0.05 0.26 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
2027 Construction Subtotal 2.85 11.33 15.13 0.04 0.38 0.36 2028 Construction
Building Construction 0.31 2.55 3.28 0.01 0.08 0.08
Architectural Coating 1.11 0.04 0.19 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
2028 Construction Subtotal 1.42 2.59 3.47 0.01 0.09 0.09 Entire Construction Duration (2024-2028)
Maximum Annual Construction
Emissions2 7.28 25.69 32.06 0.08 1.00 0.94
Valley Air District Significance
threshold (tons/year)
10 10 100 27 15 15
Exceed threshold—significant
impact? No Yes No No No No
Notes:
CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter ROG = reactive organic gases
SOX = sulfur oxides 1 PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are from the mitigated output to reflect compliance with Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions. 2 The maximum annual emissions would occur during the 2024 year. 3 This scenario accounts for the overlapping of Phases 1, 2, and 3 (i.e., concurrent phasing).
Source of Emissions: CalEEMod Output of Appendix B.
2500
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality
3.3-47
Year
Emissions (approximate tons per year)1
ROG NOx CO SOX
PM10
(Exhaust)
PM2.5
(Exhaust)
Source of Thresholds: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. February 19. Website: https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. Accessed June 1, 2023.
As shown in Table 3.3-13, the unmitigated construction emissions assuming the sequential implementation of phases would exceed the significance thresholds for NOX. In addition, if there were concurrent implementation of construction phases this level of activity would exceed the significance threshold for ROG and NOX, which reflects the reasonable worst-case scenario maximum annual emissions. Therefore, construction emissions would be potentially significant. As a result, the proposed project would need to include the following construction mitigation measures (MM):
• MM AIR-2a–Use and Operation of Tier IV or Equivalent Construction Equipment • MM AIR-2b–Use of Low VOC Architectural Coating Materials MM AIR-2a would require the construction contractors to use Tier IV or equivalent construction equipment, which is the most energy efficient class of construction equipment available, for all construction equipment above 50 horsepower. In addition, the use of Tier IV construction equipment would support California’s clean air goals by reducing construction emissions of NOX and PM10 and PM2.5. Also, MM AIR-2a would allow for the project applicant to consider using near zeroemission or electric construction equipment if that type of equipment is commercially available at the time of construction activity. If near zero-emission or electric construction equipment is utilized emissions would be further reduced, but for the purposes of presenting a conservative analysis only the use of Tier IV construction equipment was considered. Furthermore, MM AIR-2a would limit idling of construction equipment to a maximum of five minutes. In addition, MM AIR-2b–Use of Low VOC Architectural Coating Materials would be included to prevent potential impacts related to construction ROG emissions and would require that all paint or architectural coating materials used on building structures during construction not exceed 10 grams of VOC per liter of coating. MM AIR2b would reduce ROG emissions because the architectural coating phase of construction emits the most ROG (also called VOCs). As shown in Table 3.3-14, with implementation of MM AIR-2a and -2b, assuming the sequential implementation of phases, ROG and NOX emissions would be reduced below the Valley Air District 10 tons per year threshold. However, if construction Phases 1, 2, and 3 were to overlap (i.e., concurrent phasing), the proposed project would still exceed Valley Air District thresholds of 10 tons per year for NOX even with implementation of this mitigation, as shown in the reasonable worse-case scenario. Moreover, no other feasible mitigation measures exist that could reduce NOX emissions further because the majority of emissions would be due to the amount of construction equipment in use. Even with MM AIR-2a, the concurrent schedule would result in such a large amount of construction activity occurring at the same time that it would not be possible to reduce the resulting NOX emissions. Therefore, construction emission impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
2501
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-48
Table 3.3-14: Construction Air Pollutant Emissions (Mitigated) Year
Emissions (tons per year)1
ROG NOx CO SOX
PM10
(Exhaust)
PM2.5
(Exhaust)
2024 Construction
On-site
Demolition 0.01 0.03 0.35 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Site Preparation 0.05 0.19 1.92 <0.01 0.01 0.01
Grading 0.01 0.11 0.50 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Building Construction 1.46 7.68 28.65 0.07 0.14 0.14
Paving 0.13 0.13 1.85 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Architectural Coating 1.30 0.09 1.06 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Off-site Improvements
Paving 0.02 0.01 0.18 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Architectural Coating 0.13 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 2024 Construction Subtotal 3.11 8.25 34.54 0.08 0.15 0.15 2025 Construction
Grading 0.12 1.01 4.49 0.01 0.02 0.02
Building Construction 0.59 3.27 11.42 0.03 0.05 0.05
Paving 0.08 0.06 0.76 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Architectural Coating 0.40 0.02 0.31 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
2025 Construction Subtotal 1.19 4.36 16.98 0.04 0.07 0.07 2026 Construction
Grading 0.08 0.67 3.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Building Construction 0.54 3.08 9.69 0.03 0.05 0.05
Architectural Coating 0.84 0.02 0.26 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
2026 Construction Subtotal 1.46 3.77 12.96 0.03 0.06 0.06 2027 Construction
Building Construction 0.79 4.61 15.01 0.04 0.07 0.07
Paving 0.02 0.07 0.97 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Architectural Coating 0.45 0.02 0.26 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
2027 Construction Subtotal 1.25 4.70 16.24 0.04 0.07 0.07 2028 Construction
Building Construction 0.18 1.08 3.51 0.01 0.02 0.02
Architectural Coating 0.34 0.01 0.19 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
2502
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality
3.3-49
Year
Emissions (tons per year)1
ROG NOx CO SOX
PM10
(Exhaust)
PM2.5
(Exhaust)
2028 Construction Subtotal 0.52 1.10 3.70 0.01 0.02 0.02 Entire Construction Duration (2024-2028)
Maximum Annual Construction
Emissions2
3.10 8.22 34.18 0.08 0.15 0.15
Significance threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Exceed threshold—significant
impact? No No No No No No
Notes:
CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter ROG = reactive organic gases
SOX = sulfur oxides 1 PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are from the mitigated output to reflect compliance with Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions. 2 The maximum annual emissions would occur during the 2024 year. 3 This scenario accounts for the overlapping of Phases 1, 2, and 3 (i.e., concurrent phasing).
Source of Emissions: CalEEMod Output of Appendix B.
Source of Thresholds: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. February 19. Website: https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. Accessed June 1, 2023.
Worst-case Concurrent Construction Scenario
For the purpose of providing a conservative analysis in the event that construction sequence occurs earlier than anticipated, a worst-case scenario where all construction activity would overlap (i.e., construction of Phases 1, 2, and 3 occurs concurrently from March 2024 to March 2025) is modeled to account for the maximum criteria pollutant emissions. The scenario incorporates MM AIR-2a that all construction equipment meets Tier IV final off-road emission standards, if commercially available.
The annual emissions and maximum emissions are summarized in the Air Quality Report as Appendix B. To note that due to the size of the proposed project (284 acres), it is highly unlikely that the three phases would occur at the same time and the overall construction can be completed in 30 months. However, if construction Phases 1, 2, and 3 were to overlap (i.e., concurrent phasing), the proposed project would exceed Valley Air District thresholds for NOX and ROG even with implementation of MM AIR-2a. Moreover, no other feasible mitigation measures exist that could reduce NOX emissions further because the majority of emissions would be due to the amount of construction equipment in use. Even with MM AIR-2a, the concurrent schedule would result in such a large amount of construction activity occurring at the same time that it would not reduce the resulting NOX emissions to below thresholds. Therefore, construction emission impacts of the concurrent worst-case scenario would be significant and unavoidable. 2503
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-50
Operational Emissions
Operational emissions occur over the lifetime of the proposed project are from two main sources:
area sources and motor vehicles(i.e., mobile sources). Construction is scheduled to be completed in several phases starting with Phase 1, which would be completed in 2025, Phase 2 in 2026, and Phase 3 in 2028, although for purposes of a conservative analysis, this assessment also evaluates impacts associated with concurrent phasing. The Valley Air District considers construction and operational emissions separately when making significance determinations.
For assumptions in estimating the emissions, please refer to Section 3.3.3 Methodology and the Air Quality Report. The emissions modeling results for project operation are summarized in Table 3.3-15.
Table 3.3-15: Operational Air Pollutant Emissions (Unmitigated) Source
Emissions (approx. tons per year)
ROG NOx CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Phase 1
Area 8.00 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Energy 0.13 1.18 0.99 0.01 0.09 0.09
Mobile (Passenger Vehicles) 3.09 2.20 25.91 0.06 5.60 1.43 Mobile (Trucks) 0.50 40.28 7.81 0.32 9.24 2.90
Phase 1 Subtotal 11.72 43.66 34.73 0.39 14.93 4.42
Phase 2
Area 3.66 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Energy 0.07 0.66 0.55 <0.01 0.05 0.05
Mobile (Passenger Vehicles) 4.45 2.06 24.07 0.04 3.83 0.98 Mobile (Trucks) 0.21 17.25 3.41 0.14 4.11 1.29
Phase 2 Subtotal 8.39 19.97 28.04 0.18 7.99 2.32
Phase 3
Area 3.91 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Energy 0.07 0.61 0.51 <0.01 0.05 0.05
Mobile (Passenger Vehicles) 1.31 0.82 10.59 0.03 2.78 0.71 Mobile (Trucks) 0.21 16.94 3.43 0.14 4.33 1.36
Phase 3 Subtotal 5.5 18.37 14.54 0.17 7.16 2.12
Project Buildout (Phases 1–3)
Total 25.79 83.1 91.58 0.79 35.13 10.15
Significance threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Exceed threshold—significant
impact?
Yes Yes No No Yes No
2504
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality
3.3-51
Source
Emissions (approx. tons per year)
ROG NOx CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Notes:
CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter ROG = reactive organic gases
SOX = sulfur oxides
Area source emissions include emissions from natural gas, landscape, and painting.
Source of Emissions: CalEEMod Output of Appendix B.
Source of Thresholds: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. February 19. Website: https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF.
As shown in Table 3.3-15, regional operational emissions would exceed the Valley Air District’s threshold of significance for ROG, NOX, and PM10; a potentially significant impact. The proposed project would not exceed thresholds for CO, SOX, or PM2.5.
As a result, this analysis has identified mitigation to help reduce emissions in this regard. Mitigation Measures (MM) AIR-2c, -2d, -2e, -2f, and -2g would contribute toward NOX emissions reductions.
During operation of the proposed project, it is likely that on-site off-road and on-road service equipment, such as forklifts, pallet jacks, and flat trucks could be used to move goods throughout the project site. These sets of equipment typically include internal combustion engines that would emit NOX during use. MM AIR-2c would require 1) that all on-site off-road and on-road service equipment be zero-emission or all-electric, and 2) that all project buildings would be designed to support the use of zero-emission or all-electric service equipment. By utilizing zero-emission on-site service equipment, the proposed project would reduce NOX emissions to the extent feasible that would otherwise occur.
As shown in Table 3.3-15, another contribution of NOX emissions would be from passenger vehicles due to employees traveling to and from the project site. MM AIR-2d would require each project applicant, in connection with an individual specific development proposal, to include infrastructure for EV charging stations into a minimum of 20 percent of all vehicle parking spaces (including parking for trucks) for the subject proposal, consistent with the applicable California Green Building Standards Code Tier 1 Nonresidential Mandatory Measure (Section A5.106.5.3). Although this measure would not directly include functioning charging stations, the installation of the infrastructure needed to support charging stations would allow for the future charging stations to be installed. Furthermore, MM AIR-2d would require the design of the buildings’ electrical room to hold additional panels that may be needed to supply power for the future installation of EV truck charging stations on-site. By providing EV charging infrastructure, this measure would allow for the installation of charging stations, which would provide a convenient location for employees to charge electric vehicles and incentivize employees to use electric vehicles.
MM AIR-2e would require the relevant project applicant to include signage and pavement markings along project site driveways and internal roadways to clearly identify on-site circulation patterns, 2505
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-52
minimize unnecessary on-site vehicle travel, and reduce vehicle idling, which would otherwise result in excessive NOX and PM10 emissions. As stated previously, the majority of operational NOX and PM10 emissions would be from mobile sources and any reduction in operational vehicle travel would reduce the greatest share of the proposed project’s operational emissions.
MM AIR-2f would require the proposed project to include a vegetative barrier along the south and east property boundaries. As stated in the Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment letter from the Valley Air District dated September 28, 2022, vegetative barriers can reduce exposure of gaseous pollutants on sensitive receptors. Vegetative barriers utilize the natural process of photosynthesis, where plants intake air particles including gaseous pollutants, such as NOX, and release oxygen. By including a vegetative barrier along the south and east property boundaries, MM AIR-2f would reduce exposure of NOX and PM10 emissions on nearby homes and sensitive receptors to the southeast.
Finally, MM AIR-2g would require each project applicant, in connection with an individual specific development proposal, to consider the feasibility of entering into a Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA) with the Valley Air District in order to reduce ROG, NOX, and PM10 emissions. A VERA is a potential mitigation measure that provides pound-for-pound mitigation of emissions that exceed applicable thresholds. A VERA reduces construction and operational emissions through a process that develops, funds, and implements emission reduction projects, with the Valley Air District serving as the administrator of the emissions reduction projects and verifier of the successful mitigation effort. For example, funds generated by a VERA can be used to provide grants to municipalities, such as the City of Visalia, to replace diesel-powered transit vehicles with zeroemission vehicles. In addition, a VERA would give priority to emissions reduction projects near the project site to reduce emissions near the source. However, it should be noted a VERA is an entirely voluntary measure and is not required by the Valley Air District or any regulation. Also, for purposes of CEQA, because the terms of a specific VERA are not currently known, whether this would be feasible is speculative at this time.
Moreover, the proposed project would be subject to Valley Air District Rule 9510 – Indirect Source Review, because the proposed project would exceed the 25,000-square-foot light industrial District applicability threshold for this rule. This rule aims to reduce the impact of NOx and PM10 emissions from growth within the Air Basin. As a result, compliance with the Indirect Source Review application would result in further reductions in NOx and PM10.
However, at the time of this report, there is not sufficient information to guarantee that the proposed project could feasibly implement the reduction measures associated with these mitigation measures. Moreover, the project applicant would not have ownership over the operational truck fleets because they would be owned and operated by third party vendors, and as such, the proposed project applicant could not mitigate the impacts of the primary source of operational emissions.
Therefore, in the absence of certainty that the identified mitigation can be feasibly mitigated such that project impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable due to NOX during construction and ROG, NOX, PM10 during operation of the proposed project.
2506
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality
3.3-53
CO Hotspot Analysis
A CO hotspot represents a condition wherein high concentrations of CO may be produced by motor vehicles accessing a congested traffic intersection under heavy traffic volume conditions. It has long been recognized that CO exceedances are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at intersections. Accordingly, vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly more stringent to help remedy this impact.
The analysis prepared for CO attainment in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) by the SCAQMD has been used to assist in evaluating potential for CO exceedances in other air basins. Although the SoCAB and the SCAQMD would not be the applicable air basin or air district for the proposed project, utilizing this guidance is appropriate here because CO exceedances are caused by idling vehicles and regardless of air district the same causes of CO exceedances would occur throughout the State and at the project site. For example, any project-generated vehicles trips would result in idling of passenger vehicles or trucks at the project site and on adjacent roadways that could lead to a CO exceedance. The CO hotspot analysis contained in the SCAQMD 1992 CO Plan is used to determine potential CO hotspot impacts from the proposed project, because by using the 1992 CO Plan as a worst-case scenario, the proposed project can measure CO impacts against intersections that experienced significantly more vehicle traffic than adjacent to the proposed project. The 1992 CO Plan is used a worst-case scenario because it included a CO hot spot analysis for four busy intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon time periods. The intersections evaluated included Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway (Lynwood); Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue (Westwood); Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue (Hollywood); and La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard (Inglewood). The busiest intersection evaluated was that at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue, which has a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. Subsequently the CO Plan determined that no CO hotspot would occur even with 100,000 vehicles per day at this one intersection.
As described in Table 3.3-9, the proposed project would generate up to 21,409 daily vehicle trips.
According to the Visalia General Plan EIR, Chapter 3.2 Transportation, Table 3.2-6, Shirk Avenue would experience at most 24,900 Average Annual Daily Trips (AADT).26 As a result, the addition of the proposed project’s anticipated actual trips would result in up to 46,000 daily vehicle trips, which is not close to what was analyzed in the 1992 CO Plan. Therefore, none of the intersections near the project site would have peak-hour traffic volumes exceeding those at the intersections modeled in the 1992 CO Plan, nor would there be any reason unique to the local meteorology to conclude that this intersection would yield higher CO concentrations if modeled in detail because the project site is not located in an area where air flow would be severely restricted, such as a tunnel or canyon. In conclusion, the addition of the proposed project’s daily trips would not generate a CO hotspot at local intersections and operational CO impact would be less than significant. 26 City of Visalia. General Plan EIR, Chapter 3.2 Transportation. 2507
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-54
Construction Ambient Air Quality Analysis
Valley Air District Rule 2201 requires that an Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA) be conducted for a project when that project’s maximum daily emissions exceed 100 pounds for any single criteria or precursor pollutant after incorporation of all mitigation.
Emissions occurring at or near the project site have the potential to create a localized impact, also referred to as an “air pollutant hotspot.” Localized emissions are considered significant if, when combined with background emissions, they would result in exceedance of any health-based air quality standard. In locations that already exceed standards for these pollutants, the focus of the significance conclusion is based on whether a project’s individual significant impact level, when combined with other cumulative development, would represent a cumulatively considerable contribution to an existing violation of an air quality standard.
The Valley Air District’s GAMAQI includes screening thresholds for identifying projects that need detailed analysis for localized impacts. Projects with on-site emission increases from construction activities or operational activities that exceed the 100 pounds per day screening level of any criteria pollutant after compliance with Rule 9510 and implementation of all enforceable mitigation measures would require preparation of an Ambient Air Quality Analysis. The criteria pollutants of concern for localized impact in the Air Basin are PM10, PM2.5, NOX, and CO.
An analysis of maximum daily emissions during construction and operation was conducted to determine whether emissions would exceed the 100 pounds per day screening threshold for any pollutant of concern. The results of the analysis are presented below.
Table 3.3-16: Maximum On-site Daily Air Pollutant Emissions During Construction (Unmitigated) Year
On-site Emissions (approx. pounds per day)1
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
2024 235.24 276.62 22.03 14.82
2025 273.78 360.14 19.42 12.86
2026 92.02 112.46 9.38 5.36
2027 93.78 126.70 5.50 3.89
2028 86.40 115.38 5.38 3.62
Maximum Daily Emissions 273.78 360.14 22.03 14.82
Screening threshold 100 100 100 100
Exceed screening threshold? Yes Yes No No
Notes:
CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter 1 PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are from the mitigated output to reflect compliance with Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions.
Source of Emissions: CalEEMod Output of Appendix B.
2508
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality
3.3-55
Year
On-site Emissions (approx. pounds per day)1
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Source of Thresholds: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. February 19. Website: https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. Accessed June 1, 2023.
The construction schedule is based on Table 8 and represents a conservative estimate.
As noted in Table 3.3-16, emissions of NOX and CO would exceed the applicable screening threshold prior to the application of mitigation. Implementation of MM AIR-2a would require each applicant, in connection with an individual specific development proposal, to provide documentation to the City of Visalia demonstrating that all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower meets EPA or ARB Tier 4 Final off-road emissions standards, to the extent commercially available. An analysis of maximum daily emissions during construction after incorporation of MM AIR-2a was conducted to determine whether emissions would exceed the 100 pounds per day screening threshold for any pollutant of concern. As shown in the summarized results presented in Table 3.3-17, with incorporation of identified mitigation, the proposed project’s construction emissions would not exceed the appliable daily emission threshold for NOX but would continue to exceed the applicable daily emission threshold for CO. It should be noted that if project construction moves to later years, resulting emissions are anticipated to reduce because equipment efficiency and fuel content standards generally improve with each year and construction fleet operators periodically replace old equipment with new, more efficient equipment. Therefore, the proposed project would exceed the applicable screening threshold for CO after inclusion of MM AIR2a. However, no additional, feasible mitigation would be applicable to further reduce construction CO emissions because the primary source of CO emissions is due to the operation of fossil fuel powered construction equipment. Despite the implementation of MM AIR-2a requiring all construction equipment meet Tier IV or equivalent standards, all construction equipment would still emit CO and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Electric construction equipment can be used in lieu of Tier IV equipment and would reduce CO emissions. However, because the availability of electric offroad equipment is limited compared to other clean equipment alternatives (such as Tier IV), it cannot be assumed that the project could replace enough offroad equipment with electric offroad equipment to reduce impacts to a less than significant level during construction.
Table 3.3-17: Maximum On-site Daily Air Pollutant Emissions During Construction (Mitigated) Year
On-site Emissions (pounds per day)1
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
2024 53.52 302.72 13.21 6.64
2025 74.08 391.72 10.36 4.46
2026 21.03 96.09 6.40 5.04
2027 27.75 138.48 2.67 1.10
2028 26.71 124.47 2.67 1.10
Maximum Daily Emissions 74.08 391.72 13.21 6.64
2509
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-56
Year
On-site Emissions (pounds per day)1
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Screening threshold 100 100 100 100
Exceed screening threshold? No Yes No No
Notes:
CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are from the mitigated output to reflect compliance with Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions.
Source of Emissions: CalEEMod Output of Appendix B.
Source of Thresholds: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. February 19. Website: https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. Accessed June 1, 2023.
Operational Ambient Air Quality Analysis
Operational emissions include emissions generated on-site by area sources such as natural gas combustion and landscape maintenance, and on-site travel from motor vehicles accessing the project. The maximum on-site mobile emissions include vehicle ignition start up, idling, and travel across the project site internal roadways. As described in the CalEEMod Notes in the Air Quality Report, the operational localized significance threshold modeling analysis analyzed the maximum possible distance that a vehicle could travel on-site during operation, which is approximately 2.8 miles. This distance was determined by measuring from the northwest corner of the project site to the southeast corner of the project site along proposed roadways, which would be the longest, most direct route a vehicle would travel. Maximum daily on-site emissions during project operations are shown below.
Table 3.3-18: Maximum On-site Daily Air Pollutant Emissions During Operations (Unmitigated) Source
On-site Emissions (pounds per day)1
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Area <0.01 0.39 <0.01 <0.01
Energy 12.99 10.91 0.99 0.99
Mobile (Passenger Vehicles) 10.22 129.75 22.15 5.96
Mobile (Trucks) 66.98 35.88 5.20 1.65
Total 90.19 176.94 28.34 8.6
Screening threshold 100 100 100 100
Exceed screening threshold? No Yes No No
2510
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality
3.3-57
Source
On-site Emissions (pounds per day)1
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Notes:
CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter Source of Emissions: CalEEMod Output of Appendix B.
Source of Thresholds: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. February 19. Website: https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. Accessed June 1, 2023.
The proposed project would exceed the Valley Air District screening thresholds for CO but would not exceed other operational screening thresholds. As shown in Table 3.3-18, the majority of CO emissions would be from mobile sources, such as passenger vehicles driven by employees to access the project site and trucks delivering and receiving goods. For example, it is reasonable to assume that the majority of employees would drive personal vehicles to the project site, which in order to reduce emissions, would require zero-emission vehicles. However, implementing such a measure would not be enforceable, due to a lack of realistic and legally available enforcement mechanisms the City could reasonably rely upon to enforce such a measure for the life of the proposed project.
As presented previously, if MM AIR-2c through -2f were implemented, this would reduce operational emissions, but would not reduce emissions below the applicable thresholds. As a result, since feasible mitigation would not reduce project operational emissions below the applicable thresholds, the proposed project’s operational impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Impact Summary
Regional emissions generated by the proposed project would exceed applicable thresholds despite compliance with all applicable rules, regulations, and mitigation measures during construction and operation. Localized operational emissions would also present a potentially significant impact after incorporation of identified mitigation. Both of these impacts would be significant and unavoidable given the lack of certainty with respect to implementation of feasible mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
MM AIR-2a Use of Tier IV or Tier IV Equivalent Construction Off-Road Equipment Before a construction permit is issued for the proposed project, the project sponsors shall submit construction emissions minimization plans to the City of Visalia for review and approval. The construction emissions minimization plans shall detail compliance with the following requirements:
(1) Subject to same being commercially available, all off-road equipment utilized in connection with the subject individual development proposal shall have engines that meet either EPA or ARB Tier IV Final off-road emission standards. Provided, however, if engines that comply with Tier IV Final off-road emission standards are not commercially available, then the construction contractor shall use the 2511
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-58
next cleanest piece of off-road equipment (e.g., Tier IV Interim) available. For purposes of this mitigation measure, “commercially available” shall mean the availability of Tier IV Interim engines taking into consideration factors such as (i) critical-path timing of construction; (ii) costs of utilizing same are commercially practicable; and (iii) geographic proximity to the project site of equipment. The relevant contractor’s provision to the City letters from at least two rental companies for each piece of off-road equipment that reasonably documents the lack of commercially available off-road equipment shall be deemed sufficient for purposes of complying with this mitigation measure. The project applicant and contractor shall consider the use of near zero-emission or electric construction equipment if that type of equipment is commercially available at the time of grading permit submittal.
(2) Post signage on the project site stating that construction equipment idling times shall not exceed five minutes.
MM AIR-2b Super Compliant Architectural Coating During Construction Prior to issuance of a grading permit in connection with an individual specific development proposal for the proposed project, the relevant project sponsor shall submit to the City of Visalia Planning Division construction contracts and/or subcontracts reasonably documenting that all architectural coating material utilized in connection with the subject individual specific development proposal would not exceed 10 grams of volatile organic compound (VOC) per liter of coating.
To satisfy the above, the relevant project sponsor shall include in any construction contracts and/or subcontracts for the subject individual specific development proposal a requirement that all interior and exterior architectural coatings used in project construction meet the “super-compliant” coating VOC content standard of 10 grams or less of VOC per liter of coating. The relevant project sponsor shall also specify in the subject construction contracts and/or subcontracts the requirement to use high-volume, low-pressure spray guns during coating applications to reduce coating waste.
MM AIR-2c Electric or Zero-Emission On-site Off-Road and On-Road Service Equipment Prior to issuance of the construction grading permit in connection with an individual specific development proposal for the proposed project, the relevant project sponsor shall provide reasonable documentation to demonstrate to the City of Visalia Planning Division that all on-site off-road and on-road service equipment will utilize zero-emission technology, subject to the same being commercially practicable. Additionally, the relevant project sponsor shall provide reasonable documentation to the City of Visalia Planning Division that all proposed buildings in connection with the subject individual specific development proposal that would use on-site service equipment will be designed to include electric outlets to 2512
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality
3.3-59
equipment support the use of all-electric or zero-emission on-site service equipment, subject to the same being commercially practicable.
MM AIR-2d Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure
Prior to issuance of the grading or building permit in connection with an individual specific development proposal for the proposed project, whichever occurs first, the relevant project sponsor shall provide reasonable documentation to the City of Visalia Planning Division demonstrating that the subject individual specific development proposal shall incorporate infrastructure for electric vehicle (EV) charging stations into a minimum of 20 percent of all vehicle parking spaces (including parking for trucks), consistent with the applicable California Green Building Standards Code Tier 1 Nonresidential Mandatory Measure (Section A5.106.5.3). To satisfy the foregoing, EV charging spaces must provide electrical vehicle charging infrastructure to support future installation of EV supply equipment and shall meet the applicable design space requirements of California Green Building Standards Code Section 5.106.5.3.
In addition, the buildings’ electrical room shall be sufficiently sized to hold additional panels that may be needed to supply power for the future installation of electric vehicle (EV) truck charging stations on the site. Conduit should be installed from the electrical room to tractor trailer parking spaces in a logical location(s) on the site determined by the project applicant during construction document plan check, for the purpose of accommodating the future installation of EV truck charging stations at such time this technology becomes commercially available and the buildings are being served by trucks with electric-powered engines.
MM AIR-2e On-Site Signage and Pavement Markings
In connection with an individual specific development proposal for the proposed project, whichever occurs first, the relevant project sponsor shall provide reasonable documentation to the City of Visalia Planning Division demonstrating signage and pavement marking that show on-site circulation routes have been or will be included along the relevant portions of the project site driveways and internal roadways.
MM AIR-2f Vegetative Barrier
Prior to issuance of the grading or building permit in connection with an individual specific development proposal for the proposed project, whichever occurs first, the relevant project sponsor shall provide reasonable documentation to the City of Visalia Planning Division demonstrating the inclusion of a vegetative barrier along the south and east property boundaries of the project site. Prior to issuance of first occupancy permit, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the Visalia Planning Division the installation of the vegetative barrier at the described locations. 2513
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-60
MM AIR-2g Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement
Prior to issuance of the grading or building permit in connection with an individual specific development proposal for the proposed project, whichever occurs first, the relevant project sponsor shall consult with the City of Visalia Planning Division about the feasibility of entering into a Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreement (VERA) with the Valley Air District.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Significant and unavoidable impact.
Sensitive Receptors Exposure to Pollutant Concentrations Impact AIR-3: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Impact Analysis
Sensitive Receptors
• Those who are sensitive to air pollution include children, the elderly, and persons with preexisting respiratory or cardiovascular illness. The Valley Air District considers a sensitive receptor to be a location that houses or attracts children, the elderly, people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. Examples of sensitive receptors include hospitals, residences, convalescent facilities, and schools. The closest existing and planned sensitive receptors located near the project site include:
• Single-family residential homes located directly to the southeast across the intersection of Riggin Avenue and Shirk Street, with the closest home approximately 160 feet to the southwest.
• Denton Elementary School located approximately 2,200 feet to the southwest. The City of Visalia General Plan Land Use Element27 designates an area as Multi-Family Residential approximately 2,700 feet to the east of the project site, which could result in new sensitive receptors.
• The Carleton Acres Specific Plan area located to the east of the North Shirk Avenue and West Riggin Avenue intersection, which could result in up to 3,368 residential units to the east of the project site.
Construction: ROG
During construction, ROG is emitted during the application of architectural coatings (painting). The amount emitted is dependent on the amount of ROG (or VOC) in the paint. ROG emissions are typically an indoor air quality health hazard concern rather than an outdoor air quality health hazard concern because of the rapid dispersion of ROGs into the atmosphere when applied outdoors.
Whereas indoors the enclosed spaces prevent the gases from escaping into the atmosphere and can accumulate in high concentrations. Furthermore, no sensitive receptors would be located on-site 27 City of Visalia. General Plan Land Use Interactive Map. Website:
https://www.visalia.city/depts/community_development/planning/gp.asp. Accessed June 1, 2023. 2514
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality
3.3-61
during construction that could be exposed to high levels of ROGs such that they would present a health risk concern. Therefore, exposure to ROG during architectural coatings is a less than significant health impact.
There are three types of asphalt that are typically used in paving: asphalt cements, cutback asphalts, and emulsified asphalts. However, Valley Air District Rule 4641 prohibits the use of the following types of asphalt: rapid cure cutback asphalt; medium cure cutback asphalt; slow cure asphalt that contains more than 0.5 percent of organic compounds that evaporate at 500°F or lower; and emulsified asphalt containing organic compounds, in excess of 3 percent by volume, that evaporate at 500°F or lower. An exception to this is medium cure asphalt when the National Weather Service official forecast of the high temperature for the 24-hour period following application is below 50°F.
The acute (short-term) health effects from worker direct exposure to asphalt fumes include irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat. Other effects include respiratory tract symptoms and pulmonary function changes. The studies were based on occupational exposure of fumes. Residents are not in the immediate vicinity of the fumes because asphalt paving activity would be temporary and only occur on the project site and in areas where roadway improvements would occur as part of construction activity. Consequently, exposure to asphalt fumes could only occur during the paving phase of construction which would only occur during permissible construction hours and would end once construction is complete; therefore, they would not be subjected to concentrations high enough to evoke a negative response. In addition, the restrictions that are placed on asphalt in the San Joaquin Valley by the Valley Air District reduce ROG emissions from asphalt and exposure because they reduce odor and fumes from burning of asphalt material. The impact to nearby sensitive receptors from ROG during construction is less than significant.
Operation: ROG
During operation, ROG would be emitted primarily from motor vehicles and the use of consumer products. Direct exposure to ROG from project motor vehicles would not result in health effects, because the ROG would be distributed across miles of roadway and disperse rapidly into the air. In order for a significant impact to occur motor vehicles would need to be operating within an enclosed area, such as a tunnel or freeway overpass, adjacent to sensitive receptors, where ROGs would be highly concentrated. As a result, nearby residents would not be at risk from ROGs emitted by motor vehicles because they are separated by existing roadways and located in neighborhoods with no enclosed spaces where motor vehicles would operate and ROGs. In addition, ROG emissions generated by the use of consumer products would be limited to the immediate area in which they are used on-site and would only occur during activities that use those products, such as facility cleaning activities. Nearby sensitive receptors would not be exposed to significant amounts of consumer product ROGs during operation of the proposed project because residents would not be located on the project site and consumer product activities would only occur during scheduled cleaning activities. Therefore, nearby sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial ROG concentrations during project operations.
Construction: NOX, PM10, PM2.5
As discussed in Impact AIR-2, localized unmitigated concentrations of PM10, and PM2.5 generated during project construction would not exceed the ambient air quality standards, while localized 2515
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-62
concentrations of NOX would not exceed ambient standards after incorporation of MM AIR-2a.
However, localized concentrations of CO would exceed the 100 pounds per day ambient air quality standard set by the Valley Air District, even after the incorporation of mitigation. Therefore, CO emissions during construction would exceed the significance thresholds after incorporation of mitigation and would be expected to result in concentrations that would exceed ambient standards or contribute substantially to an existing exceedance of an ambient air quality standard. As a result, because these impacts could not be feasibly mitigated to a less than significant level for the reasons discussed above, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Operation: NOX, PM10, PM2.5,
As discussed in Impact AIR-2, localized concentrations of NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 would not exceed the ambient air quality standards. However, localized concentrations of CO during operations would exceed the 100 pounds per day ambient air quality standard set by the Valley Air District. Therefore, CO emissions during construction would exceed the significance thresholds even after incorporation of mitigation, and would be expected to result in concentrations that would exceed ambient standards or contribute substantially to an existing exceedance of an ambient air quality standard. As a result, because these impacts could not be feasibly mitigated to a less than significant level for the reasons discussed above, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Toxic Air Contaminants
Project construction would involve the use of diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment that emit DPM, which is considered a TAC. The Valley Air District’s applicable threshold of significance for TAC emissions is an increase in cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual of 20 in a million (formerly 10 in a million). The Valley Air District’s 2015 GAMAQI does not currently recommend analysis of TAC emissions from project construction activities, but instead focuses on projects with operational emissions that would expose sensitive receptors over a typical lifetime of 70 years.
Toxic Air Pollutants—On-site Workers
A variety of State and national programs, laws and regulations protect workers from safety hazards, including high air pollutant concentrations.28,29
On-site workers are not required to be addressed through this Health Risk Assessment (HRA) process, consistent with guidance published by CAPCOA, Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects, indicates that on-site receptors are included in risk assessments if they are persons not employed by the proposed project.30 This makes sense since persons not employed by the proposed project would not remain on-site for any significant period. Therefore, an HRA for on-site receptors consisting of on-site workers is not required or recommended. No further discussion is necessary.
Health Risk Assessment
During construction and operation, the proposed project would result in emissions of several TACs that could potentially impact nearby sensitive receptors. The Valley Air District has defined health 28 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2003. United States Department of Labor. Safety and Health Topics:
Methane. Website: www.osha.gov/dts/chemicalsampling /data/CH_250700.html. Accessed April 6, 2023. 29 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2012. Construction—website: www.cdc.gov/niosh/construction/. Indoor Environmental Quality—website: www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/indoorenv/constructionieq.html. Accessed April 6, 2023. 30 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2009. Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects. 2516
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality
3.3-63
risk significance thresholds. These thresholds are represented as a cancer risk to the public and a non-cancer hazard from exposures to TACs. Cancer risk represents the probability (in terms of risk per million individuals) that an individual would contract cancer resulting from exposure to TACs continuously over a period of several years. The Valley Air District’s latest threshold of significance for TAC emissions is an increase in cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual of 20 in a million (formerly 10 in a million). The principal TAC emission analyzed in this assessment was DPM from operation of off-road equipment and diesel-powered delivery and worker vehicles during construction and operation. DPM has been identified by the ARB as a carcinogenic substance. For purposes of this analysis, DPM is represented as exhaust emissions of PM10. DPM represented as exhaust PM10 adequately addresses impacts from PM10 and PM2.5 emissions, as PM2.5 comprises a component of PM10. Fugitive dust components of PM10 and PM2.5 would be controlled through the use of required dust control practices during project construction and therefore fugitive dust would not be considered as part of this HRA.
Given the proposed gas station, the analysis considers specific emissions associated with this type of land use. The primary routine emission activities at gasoline service stations are classified into five categories of loading, breathing, fueling, spillage, and hose permeation. Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, naphthalene, hexane and propylene are the TACs of concern with cancer toxicity values from gasoline dispensing facilities, with benzene accounting for nearly 85 percent of cancer risk from gasoline. In this analysis, health risks associate with exposure to benzene from gasoline service stations are assessed as part of the operational HRA.
Two drive-through restaurants would operate in the southeast corner of the project site. The restaurants would emit cooking TACs, depending on the type of restaurants, for instance, charbroiler, fryer, griddle, etc. However, it is speculative to estimate such emissions at time of this analysis. The restaurant emissions would be subjected to Valley Air District permit review before the operation.
Therefore, the restaurant cooking TACs are not considered in the operational HRA.
Exposures to TACs can result in both short-term (acute) or long-term (chronic) non-cancer health impacts. Such impacts could include illnesses related to reproductive effects, respiratory effects, eye sensitivity, immune effects, kidney effects, blood effects, central nervous system, birth defects, or other adverse environmental effects.
Estimation of Cancer Risks
Cancer risks are estimated as the upper-bound incremental probability that an individual will develop cancer as a direct result of exposure to potential carcinogens over a specified exposure duration. The cancer risk attributed to a chemical is calculated by multiplying the chemical intake or dose at the human exchange boundaries (e.g., lungs) by the chemical-specific cancer potency factor (CPF). A risk level of 20 in a million implies a likelihood (or risk) that up to 20 persons, out of one million equally exposed people would contract cancer if exposed continuously (24 hours per day) to the levels of TACs over a specified duration of time. This risk would be an excess cancer risk that is in addition to any environmental cancer risk borne by a person not exposed to these air toxics.
California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has developed guidance for estimating cancer risks that considers the increased sensitivity of infants and adults to TAC 2517
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-64
emissions, different breathing rates, and time spent at home. This guidance was applied in estimating cancer risks from the construction and operation of the proposed project.
The recommended method for the estimation of cancer risk is shown in the equations.
Cancer Risk = CDPM x Inhalation Exposure Factor(EQ-1)
Where:
Cancer Risk = Total individual excess cancer risk defined as the cancer risk a hypothetical individual faces if exposed to carcinogenic emissions from a particular source for specified exposure durations; this risk is defined as an excess risk because it is above and beyond the background cancer risk to the population; cancer risk is expressed in terms of risk per million exposed individuals.
CDPM = Period average DPM air concentration calculated from the air dispersion model in µg/m3
Inhalation is the most important exposure pathway to impact human health from DPM and the inhalation exposure factor is defined as follows:
Inhalation Exposure Factor=CPF x EF x ED x DBR x AAF/AT (EQ-2) Where:
CPF = Inhalation cancer potency factor for the TAC: 1.1 (mg/kg-day)-1 for DPM EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
ED = Exposure duration (years of construction)
AAF = set of age-specific adjustment factors that include age sensitivity factors (ASF), daily breathing rates (DBR), and time at home factors (TAH)
AT = Averaging time period over which exposure is averaged (days) Estimation of Chronic Non-Cancer Hazards
An evaluation of potential non-cancer effects of chronic chemical exposures was also conducted.
Adverse health effects were evaluated by comparing the annual receptor concentration of each chemical compound with the appropriate Reference Exposure Level (REL). Available RELs promulgated by OEHHA were considered in the assessment.
Risk characterization for non-cancer health hazards from TACs is expressed as an HI. The HI is a ratio of the predicted concentration of the project’s emissions to a concentration considered acceptable to public health professionals, termed the REL.
To quantify non-carcinogenic impacts, the HI approach was used.
HI = Cann/REL (EQ-3)
2518
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality
3.3-65
Where:
HI = chronic hazard index
Cann = annual average concentration of TAC as derived from the air dispersion model (µg/m3 )
REL = reference exposure level above which a significant impact is assumed to occur (µg/m3 )
The HI assumes that chronic exposures to TACs adversely affect a specific organ or organ system (toxicological endpoint) of the body. For each discrete chemical exposure, target organs presented in regulatory guidance were used. To calculate the HI, each chemical concentration or dose is divided by the appropriate toxicity REL. For compounds affecting the same toxicological endpoint, this ratio is summed. Where the total equals or exceeds 1, a health hazard is presumed to exist. OEHHA has defined a REL for DPM of 5 µg/m3
. The principal toxicological endpoint assumed in this assessment was through inhalation.
Toxic Air Contaminant Construction Analysis
Major sources of DPM during construction include off-road construction equipment and heavy-duty delivery truck activities. The results of the HRA prepared for project construction for cancer risk and long-term chronic non-cancer risk are summarized below. Air dispersion modeling was utilized to assess the proposed project’s potential health risks using AERMOD Version 22112, which is an air dispersion model accepted by the EPA and the Valley Air District for preparing HRAs. Exhaust emissions of DPM (as PM10 exhaust) were estimated using CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0. Construction emissions were estimated assuming adherence to all applicable rules, regulations, and the incorporation of identified project design features. The construction emissions were assumed to be distributed over the project site with a working schedule of eight hours per day and five days per week. Emissions were adjusted by a factor of 4.2 to convert for use with a 24-hour-per-day, 365 dayper-year averaging period. Detailed parameters, a description of methodology, and complete calculations are contained in Appendix B.
The estimated health and hazard impacts at the Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor (MIR) from the proposed project’s construction emissions are provided below. Under both unmitigated reasonable and worst-case scenario, the proposed project’s construction DPM emissions would not exceed the cancer risk significance threshold at the MIR. Although not required to reduce construction health risk impacts, the implementation of MM AIR-2a to reduce criteria pollutant emissions (as required by Impact AIR-2) would further reduce estimated health risks and hazards during project construction for reasonable (Table 3.3-19) and worst-case scenario (Table 3.3-20). The estimated health risks and hazards during project construction, after application of MM AIR-2a is presented below for informational purposes. The MIR is a unit located at the northwest corner within a single-family duplex complex located at 6714 W Oriole Drive, Visalia, CA 93291. The MIR’s coordinates are 36.356176, -119.367478.
2519
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-66
Table 3.3-19: Estimated Health Risks and Hazards During Project Construction (Mitigated)– Reasonable Scenario
Source and Scenario
Cancer Risk
(risk per million)
Chronic
Non-Cancer HI1
Acute
Non-Cancer HI2
Construction–Reasonable Scenario 1.95 0.00093 –
Significance Threshold 20 1 1
Exceeds Individual Source Threshold? No No No
Notes:
HI = hazard index
MIR = Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor
1 Chronic non-cancer HI was estimated by dividing the maximum annual DPM concentration (as PM10 exhaust) by the REL of 5 µg/m3. 2 The acute health effect of DPM is not significant and acute HI of DPM is not available in HARP.
Source: Health Risk Assessment of Appendix B.
Table 3.3-20: Estimated Health Risks and Hazards During Project Construction (Mitigated)–WorstCase/Concurrent Construction Scenario Source
Cancer Risk
(risk per million)
Chronic
Non-Cancer HI1
Acute
Non-Cancer HI2
Construction–Worst-case Scenario 2.69 0.0015 –
Significance Threshold 20 1 1
Exceeds Individual Source Threshold? No No No
Notes:
HI = hazard index
MIR = Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor
1 Chronic non-cancer HI was estimated by dividing the maximum annual DPM concentration (as PM10 exhaust) by the REL of 5 µg/m3. 2 The acute health effect of DPM is not significant and acute HI of DPM is not available in HARP.
Source: Health Risk Assessment of Appendix B.
Toxic Air Contaminant Operation Analysis
DPM and Gasoline TAC Emissions
Major sources of DPM during operation potentially include passenger vehicles from employees, HHD trucks, on-site off-road and on-road service equipment, such as forklifts and pallet jacks, because these vehicles use diesel as the fuel source. Although the gas station, drive-through restaurant, RV parking area, and self storage facilities would result in idling vehicles, which could result in small amounts of TAC emissions, the majority of these vehicles would be gasoline powered which do not run on diesel fuel or emit significant amounts of DPM emissions. Material handling equipment at the facility (pallet jacks and forklifts) would be electric and would not emit DPM.
The results of the HRA prepared for project operation for cancer risk and long-term chronic noncancer risk are summarized below. Air dispersion modeling was utilized to assess the proposed project’s potential health risks using AERMOD Version 22112, which is an air dispersion model 2520
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality
3.3-67
accepted by the EPA and the Valley Air District for preparing HRAs. Sources in the modeling included those from running and idle exhaust emissions from trucks on and operating off-site on adjacent roadways as well as gasoline service station emissions.
Emissions of DPM (as PM10 exhaust) for running exhaust at speeds of 0–25 miles per hour as well as idling exhaust emissions of DPM were estimated using EMFAC 2021 using project-level inputs and the EMFAC-PL31 (project level) web tool. On-Site idling was estimated at 20 minutes per truck visit to account for idling at several locations within the site including during entering and exiting, at the docks and at the truck parking areas. On-site truck travel at speeds of 0-15 mile per hour were accounted for in the on-site emissions. Off-site truck emissions at speeds ranging from 0-25 mph were modeled on the roadways adjacent to the site (Riggins Avene and Shirk Road). Truck distributions along each of these roadways were derived from the traffic study distribution data.
Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, naphthalene, hexane and propylene are the TACs of concern with cancer toxicity values from gasoline dispensing facilities, with benzene accounting for nearly 85 percent of cancer risk from gasoline.
As stated in the Project Description, the proposed project would include approximately 6,900 square feet of gas station and convenience store space, and as a result, the proposed project would generate TACs associated with gasoline loading and dispensing emissions during emissions.
Accordingly, the proposed project’s operational gas station TAC emission impacts on sensitive receptors were evaluated in the HRA. Emissions were calculated based on a project-specific throughput of 900,000 gallons per years and methodologies developed by the ARB and CAPCOA for Gasoline Service Stations.32 Operational emissions were estimated assuming adherence to all applicable rules, regulations, and incorporation of identified project design features. Detailed parameters, a description of methodology, and complete calculations are contained in Appendix B.
The estimated health and hazard impacts at the MIR from the proposed project’s operation is provided in Table 3.3-21. Because the same MIR is exposed to both project construction and operation, the cumulative risks are provided in Table 3.3-22.
Table 3.3-21: Estimated Health Risks and Hazards During Project Operation (Unmitigated) at the MIR
Source
Cancer Risk
(risk per million)
Chronic
Non-Cancer HI
Acute
Non-Cancer HI1
Gasoline Fueling Activities 0.1 <0.0001 0.06
Operational DPM (On-Site) 0.69 0.0002 –
Operational DPM (Off-Site Trucks) 2.56 0.0007 –
Total Risk from Project Operations 3.35 0.001 0.06
31 California Air Resources Board, EMFAC2021 Project-Level Analysis Web Tool, Website: https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/project-analysis, Accessed on October 23, 2023. 32 California Air Resources Board and California Air Pollution Control Officers Association Gasoline Service Station Industrywide Risk Assessment Technical Guidance February 18, 2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/gasoline-service-stationindustrywide-risk-assessment-guidance 2521
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-68
Source
Cancer Risk
(risk per million)
Chronic
Non-Cancer HI
Acute
Non-Cancer HI1
Significance Threshold 20 1 1
Exceeds Individual Source
Threshold?
No No No
Notes:
DPM = diesel particulate matter
HI = hazard index
MIR = Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor
Source: Health Risk Assessment of Appendix B.
Table 3.3-22: Cumulative Health Risks and Hazards During Reasonable Construction (Mitigated) and Operation (Unmitigated) at the MIR
Source
Cancer Risk
(risk per million)
Chronic
Non-Cancer HI
Acute
Non-Cancer HI1
Reasonable Construction + Operation 5.30 0.002 0.06
Significance Threshold 20 1 1
Exceeds Cumulative Threshold? No No No
Notes:
DPM = diesel particulate matter
HI = hazard index
MIR = Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor
Source: Health Risk Assessment of Appendix B.
As noted in Table 3.3-21, the proposed project’s operational DPM emissions would not exceed the cancer risk significance threshold or non-cancer hazard index significance threshold at the MIR. As shown in Table 3.3-22 and Air Quality Report, the combined impact from project construction and operation at the MIR would not exceed the cumulative health risk threshold. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact on nearby sensitive receptors from TACs during operation. The proposed project would be required to implement MM AIR-2c through -2g during project operation to reduce emissions, which represents all feasible and enforceable mitigation measures. Health risk impacts from construction and operations, and construction with operations combined would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
2522
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality
3.3-69
Objectionable Odors Exposure
Impact AIR-4: Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Impact Analysis
In general, two situations typically create a potential for other emissions, such as those leading to odors, which can occur. The first occurs when a new odor source is located near an existing sensitive receptor. The second occurs when a new sensitive receptor locates near an existing source of odor.
For purposes of review under CEQA, only the first circumstance typically involves a CEQA issue since the second involves an impact of the existing environment on the project (i.e., “CEQA in reverse”).
Odor impacts on residential areas and other sensitive receptors, such as hospitals, daycare centers, schools, etc. warrant the closest scrutiny, but consideration should also be given to other land uses where people may congregate, such as recreational facilities, worksites, and commercial areas.
The Valley Air District has determined the common land use types that are known to produce odors in the Air Basin. These types are shown in Table 3.3-23.
Table 3.3-23: Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources Odor Generator Screening Distance
Wastewater Treatment Facilities 2 miles
Sanitary Landfill 1 mile
Transfer Station 1 mile
Composting Facility 1 mile
Petroleum Refinery 2 miles
Asphalt Batch Plant 1 mile
Chemical Manufacturing 1 mile
Fiberglass Manufacturing 1 mile
Painting/Coating Operations (e.g., auto body shop) 1 mile Food Processing Facility 1 mile
Feed Lot/Dairy 1 mile
Rendering Plant 1 mile
Source: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. February 19. Website:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI-2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. Accessed October 21, 2022.
As summarized above, and as according to the Valley Air District GAMAQI, analysis of potential odor impacts should be conducted for the following two situations:
2523
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-70
• Generators: projects that would potentially generate odorous emissions proposed to locate near existing sensitive receptors or other land uses where people may congregate, and • Receivers: residential or other sensitive receptor projects or other projects built for the intent of attracting people locating near existing odor sources.
Because the proposed project would not introduce new sensitive receptors to an area near existing odor sources, this analysis implements the following methodology to evaluate potential impacts in this regard: Would the project generate significant amounts of odors during construction or operation?
Project Analysis
Project Construction
Diesel exhaust and ROGs would be emitted during construction of the proposed project as a result of the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on-site, which would create localized odors. The proposed project would develop a total of approximately 284 acres over time, which would require the operation of construction equipment and vehicles throughout the project site.
However, as the proposed buildings would be located within the interior of the project site and set back from the project boundaries and surrounding land uses, the operation of construction equipment and vehicles would predominantly occur in the interior of the project site and not along the project boundaries or near sensitive receptors located to the southeast. Moreover, emissions would disperse relatively rapidly from the project site given the nature of the emissions. Thus, these odors would be temporary and would not likely be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the project’s site boundaries. As such, construction odor impacts would be less than significant.
Project Operation
Odor Generator
As noted above, land uses that are typically identified as sources of objectionable odors include landfills, transfer stations, sewage treatment plants, wastewater pump stations, composting facilities, feed lots, coffee roasters, asphalt batch plants, and rendering plants. The proposed project would be occupied by multiple tenants/occupants in the light industrial buildings, a convenience store and gas station, a car wash, and two drive-thru restaurants. None of the proposed uses would be considered sources of significant odors; see, e.g., the types of uses identified in Table 3.3-23.
Although the gas station use would emit some odors due to the re-fueling of gasoline and diesel, this land use would not include refining of fossil fuels and odors would disperse into the atmosphere relatively rapidly, similar to construction emissions, and the closest sensitive receptor would be located across the West Riggin Avenue and North Shirk Street intersection, such that odors would not be significant. As a result, the proposed project would not place an odor source within the screening distance to sensitive receptors.
Odor Source
For information purposes, the following is noted. The proposed project would not include residential, daycare, or other types of sensitive receptor land uses on the project site. As a result, the proposed project would not place new sensitive receptors within the screening distance of a significant source of odors.
2524
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Air Quality
3.3-71
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
3.3.10 - Cumulative Impacts
The geographic scope considered for cumulative impacts to air quality is the Air Basin. In developing mass emission thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants and ozone precursors, the Valley Air District considers the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, if a project would exceed the identified construction or operational significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable. The Air Basin is in nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, which means that the background levels of those pollutants are at times higher than the ambient air quality standards and a cumulative air quality impact currently exists for the region. Therefore, if a project exceeds the Valley Air District significance thresholds for ozone precursor emissions or emissions of PM10 or PM2.5, that project would be considered to contribute to an existing cumulative air quality impact. As discussed in Impact AIR-2, MMs AIR-1a through AIR-1g would reduce the proposed project’s potentially significant air quality impacts related to ozone precursor emissions during construction; however, as discussed in Impact AIR-2, project construction emissions for NOX would remain potentially significant after implementation of identified mitigation should all three project phases be constructed concurrently. In addition, because the full implementation of MM AIR-1g cannot be guaranteed during project operation, the proposed project could result in potentially significant impact related to regional emissions significance threshold for ROGs, NOX, and PM10 during project operation. Moreover, because full implementation of MM AIR-1g cannot be guaranteed, the proposed project could result in a potentially significant localized violation during construction and operation from CO emissions.
As discussed in Impact AIR-2, District Rule 8021 would be required, which would further ensure that air quality impacts related to fugitive particulate matter during construction activities are less than significant. Nonetheless, after incorporation of identified mitigation and implementation of the required rules and regulations, the proposed project could result in construction and operational emissions which are greater than the respective Valley Air District significance thresholds and could therefore have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulative impact. The proposed project would therefore result in significant and unavoidable cumulative air quality impacts. With regard to impacts on sensitive receptors, the DPM emissions from construction of the proposed project could result in significant health impacts if all three project phases are constructed concurrently. Therefore, the proposed project’s impact could be cumulatively considerable. In addition, the operational DPM emissions and benzene emissions from the gasoline station land use of the proposed project would not result in significant health impacts. Nonetheless, the cumulative impact associated with construction and operation of the proposed project would be cumulatively considerable.
2525
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Air Quality Draft EIR
3.3-72
Cumulative Mitigation Measures
Implement MM AIR-2a through MM AIR-2g.
Level of Cumulative Significance After Mitigation
Significant and unavoidable impact.
2526
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Biological Resources
3.4-1
3.4 - Biological Resources
3.4.1 - Introduction
This section describes the existing biological resources conditions on the project site and in the vicinity, as well as the relevant regulatory framework. This section also evaluates the potential impacts related to biological resources that could result from implementation of the proposed project and feasible mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Information in this section is based, in part, on on-site reconnaissance surveys of the project site that included a Biological Resources Assessment (BRA). The BRA can be found in Appendix C.
The purpose of the BRA is to (1) document existing and potentially occurring biological resources on the project site and adjacent areas; (2) analyze potential project-related impacts on identified biological resources; (3) summarize relevant local, State, and federal laws and regulations; and (4) recommend feasible measures to mitigate potential impacts on biological resources to less than significant levels.
Public comments from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) were received during the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) scoping period related to biological resources. • CDFW recommends that a qualified Biologist conduct a habitat assessment to determine whether the project site contains suitable habitat for Swainson’s hawk. • If suitable foraging or nesting habitat is present for the Swainson’s hawk, CDFW recommends that a qualified Biologist conduct surveys for nesting Swainson’s hawk following the entire survey methodology developed by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee1 during analysis.
• If ground-disturbing activities take place during Swainson’s hawk nesting season, CDFW recommends a minimum no-disturbance buffer of 0.5 mile until breeding season has ended or until a qualified Biologist has determined that birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parent care for survival.
• CDFW recommends that the City of Visalia assesses Crotch’s bumblebee habitat areas near the project site for potential Crotch’s bumblebee nesting sites. • If suitable Crotch’s bumblebee habitat exists in the project area or vicinity, CDFW advises that those areas would have to be avoided.
• CDFW recommends that a qualified Biologist conduct a habitat assessment to determine whether project areas contain potential habitat for the northern legless lizard. • If suitable northern legless lizard habitat is present, CDFW recommends that a qualified Biologist conduct a focused survey for the northern legless lizard to evaluate potential impacts resulting from ground and vegetation disturbance.
1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2000. Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee – Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley. May. Website:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83990. Accessed November 9, 2022. 2527
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Biological Resources Draft EIR
3.4-2
3.4.2 - Environmental Setting
The project site lies within the central portion of the San Joaquin Valley which, together with the Sacramento Valley, makes up California’s larger Central Valley. The San Joaquin Valley is bounded by the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east and Coast Ranges to the west. The project site is surrounded by mixed agriculture to the north and east and industrial complexes to the west and south, plus a dairy farm to the south. Urbanized areas in the City are located primarily to the southeast.
Elevation and Drainage
The topography of the project site and surrounding area is relatively flat, which is typical of the San Joaquin Valley. The topography of the eastern San Joaquin Valley rises gradually to the east toward the Sierra Nevada Mountains, while the topography of the western portion of the valley rises to the west toward the Coast Ranges.
Soil
The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (WSS) depicts two soil types within the project site.2 These soil types and their primary characteristics are summarized in Table
3.4-1.
Table 3.4-1: Soil Types Present within Project Site
Soil Name Slope Description
Percent of
Site
Akers-Akers,
saline-sodic,
complex
0–2% The Akers series consists of very deep, well-drained soils formed in alluvium derived from granitic rock. Akers soils are on terraces. Saline-sodic soils are high in soluble salts and exchangeable sodium.
32 Grangeville
sandy loam
0–2% The Grangeville series consists of very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils that formed in moderate coarse
textured alluvium dominantly from granitic rock sources.
Grangeville soils are on alluvial fans and floodplains. 68 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover
The following section describes vegetation communities and land cover types on the project site.
The location and spatial extent of these types are shown on Exhibit 3.4-1.
Almond Orchard
An orchard is defined as an intentional plantation of trees or shrubs that is maintained for food production. Orchards comprise fruit or nut-producing trees which are generally grown for commercial production. Such trees are often arranged in rows. The project site currently consists of 2 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2020. Web Soil Survey (WSS). United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Website: https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed November 16, 2022. 2528
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Biological Resources
3.4-3
an actively managed orchard of almond (Prunus dulcis) that is approximately 275 acres in size and was established around 2018. All orchard areas on the project site are actively managed, with sparse herbaceous understory plant cover that consists of managed ruderal non-native grasses and forbs.
Access Roads/Barren
Barren areas on the project site consist of access roads, which are currently dirt with small amounts of managed, non-native invasive grasses and forbs on edges.
Planted Ornamental Trees
An existing non-native planted ornamental tree cover includes a double row of 35 olives (Olea europaea; between approximately 1 and 2 feet diameter at breast height [DBH]) along the southern portion of the private access road bisecting the project site south to north; a cluster of two tall elm (Ulmus sp.) trees (approximately 3 feet DBH each); and one approximately 3-foot-DBH cedar (Cedrus sp.).
Valley Oak
A substantial portion of the canopy of a mature valley oak (Quercus lobata) overlaps the northern boundary of the project site. The trunk of this oak is estimated to be over 3 feet DBH and is rooted on the neighboring property, at the northern bank of Modoc Ditch.
Retention Basin and Modoc Irrigation Canal
Modoc Ditch is an artificial, actively managed irrigation canal aligned along the northern boundary of the project site. It is approximately 15 feet wide and carried approximately a foot of water at the time of the survey, though water levels are expected to fluctuate based on agricultural activity.
Modoc Ditch flows from west to east through a dirt-bottom channel, but the channel is highly disturbed with broken pavement, boulders, and debris found throughout the bed and banks. Flows of the canal are sustained by water that is pumped in through the regional irrigation infrastructure, and the flows are typically disconnected from St. John’s River to the east but can likely be connected to St. John’s River under flooding conditions.
The project site contains a man-made and actively managed retention basin for irrigation purposes.
Water levels likely fluctuate depending on agriculture activities and needs. Water is actively pumped into the retention basin from Modoc Canal. The retention basin was constructed during the establishment of the almond orchard in 2018.
Off-site Trees
Several tall trees, predominantly of the genus Eucalyptus, are present on neighboring parcels south of the project site, as close as approximately 70 feet to the project site boundary. While these trees are not proposed to be impacted directly, they have the potential to provide nesting habitat for protected species, including Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), as detailed below.
Common Wildlife Species
The vegetation community and land cover types discussed above provide habitat for a few local wildlife species adapted to agricultural land use. Wildlife activity was low during the field survey and 2529
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Biological Resources Draft EIR
3.4-4
consisted primarily of avian species. The following discussions regarding the wildlife species observed or that have a potential to occur within the project site are organized by taxonomic group.
Each discussion contains representative examples of a particular taxonomic group either observed or expected to occur on-site.
Amphibians
Amphibian species observed on-site during the field survey include abundant bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus) tadpoles in the retention basin. It is possible that other disturbance-resistant common amphibian species such as Pacific chorus frog (Pseudacris regilla) or the western toad (Anaxyrus boreas) may be present at times in the retention basin and Modoc Ditch; however, presence of bullfrog significantly limits presence of other amphibians due to predation pressure. Therefore, and because of the artificial hydrological regime and regular maintenance, these features would likely act as population sinks for amphibians and would not be considered suitable habitat for self-sustaining native amphibian populations.
Birds
Bird species observed on-site included mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), a resident pair of red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), common sparrow (Passer domesticus), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), and a robust population of killdeer (Charadrius vociferus). A nesting cavity in a large elm tree points to potential site use of woodpecker or northern flicker (Colaptes auratus).
Almost all trees on-site showed signs of previous nesting activities, including small nests built of grass and at least one larger stick nest.
Bird species not observed but potentially present within the orchards on-site include common and disturbance-resistant passerines and corvids, such as northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), American robin (Turdus migratorius), and others.
Swainson’s hawk is known to occur near the project site. While almond orchards are not considered Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat, this species is known to forage in alfalfa fields and open low crop and grasslands, and these habitat types are present adjacent to the project site.
Mammals
Because of the project site’s agricultural land use, mammal presence would likely be limited to small rodents, and potentially vagrant dispersing individuals of common mammal species, including potentially coyote (Canis latrans), cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus audubonii), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis).
Reptiles
Because of the agricultural land use, reptile presence would likely be limited to common reptile populations, potentially including gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer) and western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), which are common in disturbed and developed areas and were observed near the pump house during the field survey.
2530
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Biological Resources
3.4-5
State or Federally Protected Waters and Wetlands
The Modoc Ditch and the artificial retention basin (described above) are not expected to be regulated as State- or federally protected waters or wetlands under Clean Water Act (CWA) Sections 404/401, Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, or Fish and Game Code Section 1602 et seq. because the irrigation canal and associated retention basin have all been excavated within upland habitat for the purpose of on-site agricultural irrigation and drainage. However, legal authority to determine whether these features are jurisdictional and thus regulated lies with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and CDFW, as discussed further below.
On February 22, 2023, a preliminary Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) of Visalia-Kelsey Street Industrial Complex Project in Unincorporated, California was completed by South Environmental for the proposed project and can be found in its entirety in Appendix C.
Wildlife Movement Corridors
Most of the project site consists of actively managed orchards and does not contain habitat features such as riparian corridors that could function as wildlife corridors. Additionally, the project site is surrounded by active roadways, active agriculture, and industrial and residential development, all of which impede the movement of wildlife and limit the use of the project site as a potential corridor for wildlife movement. The project site is not within a known wildlife corridor.
Sensitive Natural Communities
None of the vegetation communities (described above) are considered sensitive natural communities. No sensitive natural communities are present on-site.
Special-status Plant Species Evaluated
An evaluation of the 17 special-status plant species and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) sensitive species that have been recorded within the Goshen, California United States Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Quadrangle Map and its eight neighboring quadrangles by the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and California Native Plant Society Electronic Inventory (CNPSEI) was completed (Appendix C.2, Table 1).3,4 The evaluation includes the species’ status, required habitat, and potential to occur within the project site. As detailed in Appendix C, none of the specialstatus plant species were determined to have potential to occur on-site primarily due to the absence of suitable habitat, past and current land use, and the extent and frequency of ground disturbance.
Valley Oak
As discussed above, although rooted on adjacent property, a substantial portion of the canopy of a valley oak is overhanging onto the project site (discussed above and shown in Exhibit 3.4-1). The valley oak can be considered a sensitive biological resource due to its local rarity, the locally unique 3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020. CNDDB RareFind 5 California Natural Diversity Database Query for SpecialStatus Species. Website: https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx. Accessed October 20, 2022. 4 California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2020. California Native Plant Society Rare and Endangered Plant Inventory. Website:
http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/. Accessed October 20, 2022. 2531
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Biological Resources Draft EIR
3.4-6
ecosystem services it provides (including shading, nesting, and roosting and foraging opportunities, nutrient cycling, and others), and its status as a protected tree under the City’s Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance.
Special-status Wildlife Species Evaluated
FCS evaluated 15 federal and State listed threatened and/or endangered wildlife species and State Species of Special Concern that have been recorded in the CNDDB as potentially occurring within the Goshen, California topographic quadrangle and its eight neighboring quadrangles (Appendix C.2, Table 2). The evaluation includes the species’ status, required habitat types and features, and potential to occur within the project site and supporting analysis and rationale. Based on the field survey and background research, the only special-status species with a realistic potential to occur on-site is Swainson’s hawk. This species, as well as other relevant special-status species, are discussed in more detail below.
Birds
Swainson’s Hawk
Swainson’s hawk is listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). 5 Swainson’s hawk is a medium-sized bird of prey with relatively long, pointed wings that curve up somewhat in a slight dihedral while the bird is in flight. Adult females weigh between 900 and 1,100 grams (32 to 39 ounces) and males from 800 to 1,000 grams (28 to 35 ounces). The most marked identifying features of an adult Swainson’s hawk are its dark head and breast band that is distinctive from the lighter colored belly and the lighter linings on the underside of the wing that are lighter than the dark gray flight feathers.
Swainson’s hawk breeds in the western United States and Canada and winters in South America as far south as Argentina. The breeding season for Swainson’s hawk in the Central Valley typically lasts from March to the end of July.
6 Swainson’s hawk typically forages in open grasslands and has become increasingly dependent on agriculture, especially alfalfa crops, as native communities are converted to agricultural lands. The diet of the Swainson’s hawk in California consists of small rodents such as voles; however, other small mammals, birds, and insects are also preyed upon.
Swainson’s hawk often nest near riparian woodlands. They will also use lone trees in agricultural fields or pastures, and roadside trees that are adjacent to suitable foraging habitat. 7 CNDDB records indicate several Swainson’s hawk nesting occurrences within 5 miles of the project site (Appendix C.1). Given these recent sightings and the existence of suitable nesting habitat in the form of several large trees near suitable foraging habitat present on adjacent properties, there is a moderate potential for this species to occur on-site.
5 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Special Animals List.
Sacramento, CA. Updated July 2022. 6 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2000. Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson's Hawk Nesting Surveys in California's Central Valley. Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee. Sacramento, California. May 31, 2000. 7 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020. Swainson's Hawks in California. Website:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Birds/Swainson-Hawks. Accessed October 20, 2022. 2532
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Biological Resources
3.4-7
Western Burrowing Owl
The western burrowing owl is a California Species of Special Concern. Western burrowing owls are year-round residents throughout much of California, especially in the Central Valley, San Francisco Bay region, Carrizo Plain, and Imperial Valley. Migrants from other parts of western North America can augment local populations in lowland areas in the winter. The breeding season in California is February 1 to August 31. Western burrowing owls prefer open, dry, short grassland habitats with few trees and often are associated with burrowing mammals such as California ground squirrels. They occupy burrows, typically abandoned by ground squirrels or other burrowing mammals, but also use artificial burrows such as abandoned pipes, culverts, and debris piles.
The project site does not contain the above-mentioned habitat requirements for western burrowing owl. No suitable burrows or signs of western burrowing owl were observed on-site. However, directly adjacent fields may provide marginal or temporary western burrowing owl habitat, and presence of western burrowing owl on an adjacent suitable property cannot be ruled out.
Mammals
San Joaquin Kit Fox
The San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) is federally listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act and is State listed as threatened. Federal critical habitat for this species has not been designated. The historical range of San Joaquin kit fox included most of the San Joaquin Valley as well as low elevation basins and ranges along the eastern side of the central Coast Ranges.
By 1930, this range had been reduced by more than half, with the largest populations occurring in the southern and western portions of the San Joaquin Valley. Today, the San Joaquin kit fox occurs in the remaining native valley and foothill grasslands and chenopod scrub communities of the valley floor and surrounding foothills, from southern Kern County north to Los Banos, Merced County.
Smaller, less dense populations may be found farther north and in the narrow corridor between Interstate 5 (I-5) and the Interior Coast Ranges from Los Banos to Contra Costa County. The San Joaquin kit fox’s range also includes portions of Monterey, Santa Clara, and San Benito Counties. The San Joaquin kit fox inhabits a variety of habitats, including grasslands; scrublands; vernal pool areas; alkali meadows and playas; and agricultural irrigated pastures, orchards, and vineyards. They prefer habitats with loose-textured soils and are found primarily in arid grasslands and open scrublands that are suitable for digging, but they occur on virtually every soil type. Dens generally are in open areas with grass or grass and scattered brush, and seldom occur in areas with thick brush. Preferred sites are relatively flat, well-drained terrain. They are seldom found in areas with shallow soils resulting from high water tables or impenetrable bedrock or hardpan layers.
No dens suitable for kit fox or other signs of kit fox presence were observed on-site. The project site is an actively managed orchard and may therefore provide only temporary dispersal habitat. As such, temporary presence of a transient individual on-site cannot be ruled out.
American Badger
The American badger (Taxidea taxus) is a California Species of Special Concern. The species is found throughout the State except in the north coast region. Badgers are most abundant in drier areas with friable soils and sparse vegetation. This species was last documented in the vicinity of Visalia in 1994, 2533
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Biological Resources Draft EIR
3.4-8
consisting of one individual seen in a fallow field with abundant ground squirrel as a prey base.
Because of the lack of required habitat elements on the project site, this species is very unlikely to occur on-site. No dens or burrows suitable for this species were observed.
Insects
Crotch’s Bumblebee
CNDDB records indicate that Crotch’s bumblebee have been documented to occur within the City of Visalia. Suitable Crotch’s bumblebee habitat includes areas of grasslands and upland scrub that contain requisite habitat elements, such as small mammal burrows. The project site consists of actively managed orchard, and no required habitat elements for this species are present. Therefore, this species is not expected to occur on-site. However, if adjacent agriculture fields cease to be actively managed and provide suitable habitat, a transient dispersing Crotch’s bumblebee may traverse the site.
Reptiles
Northern California Legless Lizard
The Northern California legless lizard occurs in moist, warm, and loose soil with plant coverage.
Moisture is essential to this species. It often occurs in sparsely vegetated areas of beach dunes, chaparral, pine-oak woodlands, desert scrub, sandy washes, and stream terraces with sycamores, cottonwoods, or oaks. It also prefers to dwell within leaf litter under trees and bushes in sunny areas and dunes stabilized with bush lupine and mock heather. This species can often be found under surface objects such as rocks, boards, driftwood, and logs. The nearest CNDDB recorded occurrence of this species is from January 1934 and the next closest occurrence is over 11 miles away and was found within the Kaweah Oaks Preserve. The project site does not contain suitable habitat for this species due to heavy modification through extensive agriculture, unsuitable soils and vegetative communities, and high aridity. Because of these circumstances, the Northern California legless lizard does not have the potential to occur within the project site.
Protected Functional Groups
Nesting birds and roosting bats include groups of species that are protected under federal and State laws and regulations and are considered sensitive and protected under certain conditions (e.g., when nesting, breeding), and are therefore included in this section.
Nesting Birds
The active nests of most bird species are protected by federal and/or State law and regulations (Migratory Bird Treaty Act [MBTA] and Fish and Game Code). Species that are protected pursuant to MBTA are identified by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 8 Nests are generally
defined as being “active” if they contain eggs or altricial young. The project site contains trees, shrubs, and structures that provide suitable habitat for protected migratory or native resident nesting bird species relatively tolerant of human disturbance. 8 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020. Website: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/16/2020- 06779/general-provisions-revised-list-of-migratory-birds. Accessed October 20, 2022. 2534
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Biological Resources
3.4-9
Roosting Bats
The larger ornamental trees and the pump house next to the retention basin on-site are potentially capable of supporting protected bat roosts (e.g., maternity roosts) of non-listed bat species tolerant to agricultural settings, if active management ceases for more than approximately one month before demolition. Protection of bats is defined in the Regulatory Setting section, below.
3.4.3 - Regulatory Framework
Federal
Endangered Species Act
The USFWS has jurisdiction over species listed as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act protects listed species from “take,” which is broadly defined as actions taken to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” The Endangered Species Act protects threatened and endangered plants and animals and their critical habitat. Candidate species are those proposed for listing; during the environmental review process, these species are usually treated by resource agencies as if they were listed.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The MBTA implements international treaties between the United States and other nations devised to protect migratory birds, their parts, eggs, and nests from activities such as hunting, pursuing, capturing, killing, selling, and shipping, unless expressly authorized in the regulations or by permit.
All migratory birds and their nests are protected from take and other impacts under the MBTA (16 United States Code [USC] § 703, et seq.).
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are afforded additional protection under the Eagle Protection Act, amended in 1973 (16 USC § 669, et seq.) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC §§ 668–668d).
Clean Water Act
Section 404
The USACE administers Section 404 of the federal CWA, which regulates the discharge of dredge and fill material into waters of the United States. The USACE has established a series of nationwide permits that authorize certain activities in waters of the United States if a proposed activity can demonstrate compliance with standard conditions. Normally, USACE requires an individual permit for an activity that will affect an area equal to or in excess of 0.5 acre of waters of the United States.
Projects that result in impacts to less than 0.5 acre can normally be conducted pursuant to one of the nationwide permits, if consistent with the standard permit conditions. The USACE also has discretionary authority to require an Environmental Impact Statement for proposed projects that result in impacts to an area between 0.1 and 0.5 acre. Use of any nationwide permit is contingent on the activities having no impacts to endangered species. 2535
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Biological Resources Draft EIR
3.4-10
Section 401
As stated in Section 401 of the CWA, “any applicant for a federal permit for activities that involve a discharge to waters of the State, shall provide the federal permitting agency a certification from the State in which the discharge is proposed that states that the discharge will comply with the applicable provisions under the federal Clean Water Act.” Therefore, before the USACE will issue a Section 404 permit, applicants must apply for and receive a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the applicable RWQCB.
State
California Endangered Species Act
The State of California enacted the CESA in 1984. CESA is similar to the federal Endangered Species Act but pertains to State listed endangered and threatened species. CESA requires lead agencies to consult with CDFW when preparing California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents. The purpose is to ensure that lead agency actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat essential to the continued existence of those species, if there are reasonable and prudent alternatives available (Fish and Game Code [FGC] § 2080). CESA directs agencies to consult with CDFW on projects or actions that could affect listed species, directs CDFW to determine whether the project would jeopardize the continued existence of a species, and allows CDFW to identify “reasonable and prudent alternatives” to the project consistent with conserving the species. CESA allows CDFW to authorize exceptions to the State’s prohibition against take of a listed species if the “take” of a listed species is incidental to carrying out an otherwise lawful project that has been approved under CEQA (FGC § 2081).
California Fish and Game Code
Under CESA, CDFW has the responsibility for maintaining a list of endangered and threatened species (FGC § 2070). Sections 2050 through 2098 of the Fish and Game Code outline the protection provided to California’s rare, endangered, and threatened species. Section 2080 of the Fish and Game Code prohibits the taking of plants and animals listed under the CESA. Section 2081 established an incidental take permit program for State listed species. The CDFW maintains a list of “Candidate species,” which it formally notices as being under review for addition to the list of endangered or threatened species.
In addition, the Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (NPPA) (FGC § 1900, et seq.) prohibits the taking, possessing, or sale within the State of any plants with a State designation of rare, threatened, or endangered (as defined by CDFW). An exception to this prohibition in the NPPA allows landowners to take listed plant species under specified circumstances, provided that the owners first notify CDFW and give the agency at least 10 days to come and retrieve (and presumably replant) the plants before they are plowed under or otherwise destroyed. Fish and Game Code Section 1913 exempts from “take” prohibition “the removal of endangered or rare native plants from a canal, lateral ditch, building site, or road, or other right-of-way.” Project impacts to these species are not considered significant unless the species are known to have a high potential to occur within the area of disturbance associated with construction of the development at issue. 2536
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Biological Resources
3.4-11
CDFW also maintains lists of “Species of Special Concern.” CDFW has identified many Species of Special Concern. Species with this status have limited distribution or the extent of their habitats has been reduced substantially, such that their populations may be threatened. Thus, their populations are monitored, and they may receive special attention during environmental review. While they do not have statutory protection, they may be considered rare under CEQA and thereby warrant specific protection measures.
Sensitive species that would qualify for listing but are not currently listed are afforded protection under CEQA. CEQA Guidelines Section 15065 (Mandatory Findings of Significance) requires that a substantial reduction in numbers of a Rare or Endangered species be considered a significant effect.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 (Rare or Endangered Species) provides for the assessment of unlisted species as Rare or Endangered under CEQA if the species can be shown to meet the criteria for listing. Unlisted plant species on the CNPS List ranked 1A, 1B, and 2 would typically be considered under CEQA.
Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 of the Fish and Game Code outline protection for fully protected species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish. Species that are fully protected by these sections may not be taken or possessed at any time. CDFW cannot issue permits or licenses that authorize the take of any fully protected species except under certain circumstances such as scientific research and live capture and relocation of such species pursuant to a permit for the protection of livestock.
Under Section 3503.5 of the Fish and Game Code, it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders of Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto. To comply with the requirements of CESA, an agency reviewing a proposed development within its jurisdiction must determine whether any State listed endangered or threatened species may be present in the relevant study area and determine whether the proposed development would have a potentially significant impact on such species. In addition, CDFW encourages informal consultation on any proposed development that may impact a candidate species.
Impacts to species on the CESA endangered or threatened list resulting from a proposed development would be considered significant. State listed species are fully protected under the mandates of CESA. “Take” of protected species incidental to otherwise lawful management activities may be authorized under Fish and Game Code Section 206.591. Authorization from CDFW would be in the form of an Incidental Take Permit.
Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code requires any entity to notify CDFW before beginning any activity that “may substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake” or “deposit debris, waste, or other materials that could pass into any river, stream, or lake.” “River, stream, or lake” includes waters that are episodic and perennial and ephemeral streams, desert washes, and watercourses with a subsurface flow. A Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement will be required if CDFW 2537
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Biological Resources Draft EIR
3.4-12
determines that project activities may substantially adversely affect fish or wildlife resources through alterations to a covered body of water.
Section 2000 and 4150 of the California Fish and Game Code state that it is unlawful to take or possess a number of species, including bats, without a license or permit as required by Section 3007.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife–Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Survey Guidelines For locating nesting Swainson’s hawk, CDFW recommends using the “Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley” dated May 31, 2000. This set of survey recommendations was developed by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee to maximize the potential for locating nesting Swainson’s hawks and thus reduce the potential for nest failures resulting from development activities/disturbances. In summary, surveys should be conducted in a manner that maximizes the potential to observe the adult Swainson’s hawk, as well as the nest/chicks. To meet CDFW recommendations for mitigation and protection of Swainson’s hawks, buffers should be established for a 0.5-mile radius around all development activities, and if active nesting is identified within the 0.5-mile radius, consultation with CDFW to determine nesting buffers is required under these guidelines. The guidelines provide specific recommendations regarding the number of surveys based on when the development at issue is scheduled to begin and the time of year the surveys are conducted.
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The RWQCB regulates actions that would involve “discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect the waters of the State” (Water Code § 13260(a)), pursuant to provisions of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act. “Waters of the State” are defined as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the State” (Water Code § 13050I).
California State Water Resources Control Board/RWQCB Stormwater Management Permitting While federal CWA NPDES regulations allow two permitting options for construction-related stormwater discharges (individual permits and General Permits), the State Water Board has elected to adopt only one Statewide Construction General Permit at this time that will apply to all stormwater discharges associated with construction activity, except from those on Tribal Lands, in the Lake Tahoe Hydrologic Unit, and those performed by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
The Construction General Permit requires all dischargers where construction activity disturbs greater than 1 acre of land, or those sites less than 1 acre that are part of a common plan of development or sale that disturbs more than one acre of land surface to:
1. Develop and implement a SWPPP that specifies BMPs that will prevent all construction pollutants from contacting stormwater with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving off-site into receiving waters.
2538
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Biological Resources
3.4-13
2. Eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters of the nation. Achieve quantitatively defined (i.e., numeric) pollutant-specific discharge standards, and conduct much more rigorous monitoring based on the development’s projected risk level.
3. Perform inspections of all BMPs.
California Native Plant Society
The CNPS maintains a rank of plant species native to California that have low population numbers, limited distribution, or are otherwise threatened with extinction. This information is published in the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Potential impacts to populations of CNPS-ranked plants receive consideration under CEQA review. The following identifies the definitions of the California Rare Plant Rank:
• Rank 1A: Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere • Rank 1B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere • Rank 2A: Plants presumed extirpated in California but common elsewhere • Rank 2B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere • Rank 3: Plants about which more information is needed • Rank 4: Watch List: Plants of limited distribution
All plants appearing on the CNPS List ranked 1 or 2 are considered to meet the CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 criteria. While only some of the plants ranked 3 and 4 meet the definitions of threatened or endangered species, potential impacts to these species or their habitats should be analyzed during the preparation of environmental documents relating to CEQA, as they may meet the definition of Rare or Endangered under CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 criteria.
Regional and Local
Habitat Conservation Plan
The project site does not lie within the boundaries of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan.
City of Visalia Municipal Code
The City Municipal Code contains the following provisions regarding the protection and preservation of biological resources:
Chapter 12.24 Oak Tree Preservation
Articles 1–5 describe the City restrictions related to potential destruction, removal, and other activities affecting oak trees during development planning and implementation, including (see Code for more details):
Article 1 Purpose and Definitions–Valley Oak Tree (Quercus lobata) and “Landmark” trees 2539
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Biological Resources Draft EIR
3.4-14
Article 2 Destruction Prohibition–Removal Permit Requirements • Willful destruction of oak trees prohibited
• Oak tree removal permit required
• Removal standards
• Mitigation requirements
Article 3 Pruning Standards and Requirements–Pruning notice required Article 4 Development Proposals; Protection of Oak Trees–Encroachment into canopy dripline of oak trees during construction
Article 5 Enforcement–Enforcement proceedings and penalties Street Tree Ordinance
Sections 12.20.010 et seq. of the City’s Municipal Code regulates the planting, long-term care, maintenance, and protection of street trees within the City, including protection during construction and replacement.
A street tree is defined as any tree that is located between the curb and sidewalk or within a tree well in the sidewalk within the public right-of-way, or any tree within a street tree easement in or adjacent to the public right-of-way.
3.4.4 - Methodology
Records Searches and Survey to Identify Existing Biological Resources The literature review provides a baseline from which to evaluate the biological resources potentially occurring on the project site, as well as the surrounding area (e.g., the Goshen, California USGS 7.5- minute Topographic Quadrangle Map and its eight neighboring quadrangles) area, in accordance with applicable requirements under CEQA. This section summarizes the results of the literature search, database review, and survey conducted on July 5, 2022.
Literature Review
Existing Documentation
As part of the literature review, an FCS Biologist examined existing environmental documentation for the project site and vicinity. This documentation included biological studies for the area; literature pertaining to habitat requirements of special-status species potentially occurring on the project site and vicinity; and federal register listings, protocols, and species data provided by USFWS and CDFW.
Topographic Maps and Aerial Photographs
A FCS Biologist reviewed current USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map(s) and aerial photographs as a preliminary analysis of the existing conditions within the project site and the remainder of the study area.
9 Information obtained from the review of the topographic maps 9 United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2020. National Geospatial Program. Website: https://www.usgs.gov/core-science2540 City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Biological Resources
3.4-15
included elevation range, general watershed information, and potential drainage feature locations using Google Earth in conjunction with the EPA Watershed Assessment, Tracking, and Environmental Results System (WATERS).
10 Aerial photographs provide a perspective of the most current site conditions relative to on-site and off-site land use, plant community locations, and potential locations of wildlife movement corridors.
Soil Surveys
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has published soil surveys that describe the soil series (i.e., group of soils with similar profiles) occurring within a particular area.11 These profiles include major horizons with similar thickness, arrangement, and other important characteristics.
These series are further subdivided into soil mapping units that provide specific information regarding soil characteristics. Many special-status plant species have a limited distribution based exclusively on soil type. Therefore, pertinent USDA soil survey maps were reviewed to determine the existing soil mapping units within the project site and to establish if soil conditions on-site are suitable for any special-status plant species.
Special-status Species Database Search
An FCS Biologist compiled a list of threatened, endangered, and otherwise special-status species previously recorded on-site and the surrounding area. The list was based on a search of the CDFW CNDDB, the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) database and the CNPSEI of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California database for the Goshen, California USGS 7.5- minute Topographic Quadrangle Map and its eight neighboring quadrangles.12,13 The CNDDB Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS 5) database was used to determine the distance between known recorded occurrences of special-status species and the project site.14
Trees
Prior to conducting the reconnaissance-level survey, a FCS Biologist reviewed applicable City and County ordinances pertaining to tree preservation and protective measures and their required tree replacement conditions or permits.
systems/national-geospatial-program/us-topo-maps-america?qt-science_support_page_related_con=4#qtscience_support_page_related_con. Accessed November 3, 2022. 10 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2020. Watershed Assessment, Tracking and Environmental Results System (WATERS). Website: https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/waters-watershed-assessment-tracking-environmental-results-system.
Accessed November 3, 2022. 11 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2020. Web Soil Survey (WSS). United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Website: https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed November 3, 2022. 12 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020. CNDDB RareFind 5 California Natural Diversity Database Query for SpecialStatus Species. Website: https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx. Accessed November 3, 2022. 13 California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2020. California Native Plant Society Rare and Endangered Plant Inventory. Website:
http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/. Accessed November 3, 2022. 14 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS 5). Website:
https://map.dfg.ca.gov/bios/. Accessed November 3, 2022. 2541
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Biological Resources Draft EIR
3.4-16
Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands
Prior to conducting the reconnaissance-level survey, a FCS Biologist reviewed EPA WATERS and aerial photography to identify any potential natural drainage features and water bodies.15 In general, all surface drainage features identified as blue-line streams on USGS maps are expected to be potentially subject to State and federal regulatory authority as “waters of the United States and/or State.” A preliminary assessment was conducted to determine the location of any existing drainages relative to the proposed limits of project-related activities involving grading or other ground disturbance.
Field Survey
FCS Senior Biologist, Robert Carroll, conducted a reconnaissance-level field survey of the project site on July 5, 2022, between approximately 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. The objective of the survey was not to exhaustively search for every potential species occurring within the project site, but rather to ascertain general site conditions and identify potentially suitable habitat areas for special-status plant and wildlife species. Special-status or unusual biological resources identified during the literature review were confirmed during the reconnaissance-level survey for mapping accuracy.
Special attention was paid to sensitive habitats and areas potentially supporting special-status floral and faunal species.
Vegetation
Common plant species observed during the reconnaissance-level survey were identified by visual characteristics and morphology in the field and recorded in a field notebook. Uncommon and less familiar plants were identified with the use of taxonomical guides, including Jepson eFlora and Calflora.16,17 Taxonomic nomenclature used in this study follows The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California.
18 Common plant names, when not available from The Jepson Manual, were taken from other regionally specific references. Vegetation types and boundaries were noted on aerial photos, verified through field observation, and digitized using ESRI ArcGIS software® ArcMap 10.0. By incorporating collected field data and interpreting aerial photography, a map of habitat types, land cover types, and other biological resources within the project site was prepared. Vegetation community and land cover types used to help classify habitat types are based on Manual of California Vegetation and cross-referenced with the CDFW Natural Communities List.19,20 Wildlife
All wildlife species that were detected during the on-site reconnaissance-level survey by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other signs were recorded, and notations were made regarding suitable habitat for 15 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2020. Watershed Assessment, Tracking and Environmental Results System (WATERS). Website: https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/waters-watershed-assessment-tracking-environmental-results-system.
Accessed October 20, 2022. 16 Jepson Flora Project (eds.) 2020. Jepson eFlora. Website: https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/. Accessed November 3, 2022. 17 Calflora. 2020. Calflora: Information on California plants for education, research, and conservation. Website:
http://www.calflora.org/. Accessed July 2022. 18 Baldwin, B. et al. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California. Berkeley: University of California Press. County of San Bernardino (Bernardino). 2007 (amended 2015). 19 Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento. 20 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020. Natural Communities List, Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Website: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities#sensitive%20natural%20communities. Accessed November 3, 2022.
2542
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Biological Resources
3.4-17
those special-status species determined to potentially occur within the project site.21 FCS staff used appropriate field guides to assist with species identification during surveys, such as Peterson, Reid, and Stebbins.22,23,24 Online resources such as eBird and California Herps were consulted, as necessary.25,26
Wildlife Movement Corridors
Wildlife movement corridors link areas of suitable wildlife habitat that are otherwise separated by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. Urbanization and the resulting fragmentation of open space areas create isolated “islands” of wildlife habitat, forming separated populations. Corridors act as an effective link between populations.
The project site was evaluated for evidence of a wildlife movement corridor during the reconnaissance-level survey. The scope of the BRA did not include a formal wildlife movement corridor study utilizing track plates, camera stations, scent stations, or snares. Rather, the focus of this study was to determine whether the proposed project’s change of land use at the project site could have significant impacts on the regional movement of wildlife.
The following conclusions are based on the information compiled during the literature review, including aerial photographs, USGS topographic maps and resource maps for the vicinity; the field survey; and professional experience with the desired topography, habitat, and resource requirements of the special-status species potentially utilizing the project site and vicinity.
Approach to Analysis
Impacts on biological resources were evaluated based on the likelihood that special-status species, sensitive habitats, wildlife corridors, and protected trees are present on the project site, and the likely effects of project construction or operation on these resources. For the purposes of this Draft EIR, the word “substantial” as used in the significance thresholds above is defined by the following three principal components:
• Magnitude and duration of the impact (e.g., substantial/not substantial), • Uniqueness of the affected resource (rarity), and
• Susceptibility of the affected resource to disturbance.
The study area for the proposed project is defined as the project site as well as any areas surrounding the site that would be disturbed by the proposed project. 21 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020. CNDDB RareFind 5 California Natural Diversity Database Query for SpecialStatus Species. Website: https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx. Accessed November 3, 2022. 22 Peterson, T.R. 2010. A Field Guide to Birds of Western North America, 4th Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 23 Reid, F. 2006. A Field Guide to Mammals of North America, 4th Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 24 Stebbins, R.C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Third Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 25 eBird. 2020. Online bird occurrence database. Website: http://ebird.org/content/ebird/. Accessed November 3, 2022. 26 California Herps. 2020. A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of California. Website: http://www.californiaherps.com/. Accessed November 3, 2022.
2543
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Biological Resources Draft EIR
3.4-18
3.4.5 - Thresholds of Significance
Significance Criteria
The lead agency derives its significance criteria based on the questions in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist. Accordingly, impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed project would be considered significant if the proposed project would:
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 United States 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, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of 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.
For purposes of this analysis, the following criteria consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15065 are considered in evaluating the significance of biological resources impacts resulting from implementation of the project. Specifically, whether the project would:
• Substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; • Cause a fish or wildlife population to drop to below self-sustaining levels; • Threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; or • Substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species.
3.4.6 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the proposed project and provides feasible mitigation measures where appropriate. 2544
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Biological Resources
3.4-19
Special-status Species
Impact BIO-1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service?
Special-status Plant Species
Seventeen special-status plant species and CNPS sensitive species that have been recorded within the Goshen, California USGS Topographic Quadrangle Map and its eight neighboring quadrangles by the CNDDB and CNPSEI were evaluated (Appendix C.2, Table 1).27,28 The evaluation includes the species’ status, required habitat, and potential to occur within the project site. As detailed more fully in Appendix C, none of the special-status plant species were determined to have potential to occur on-site primarily due to the absence of suitable habitat, past and current land use, and the extent and frequency of ground disturbance. Because of the absence of special-status plant species as well as the absence of suitable habitat for these species, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any special-status plant species.
Special-status Wildlife Species
The following section analyzes potential project-related impacts on special-status wildlife species and establishes feasible avoidance and minimization measures to reduce potential project-related impacts to less than significant levels.
Swainson’s Hawk
Suitable Swainson’s hawk nesting trees are located on the project site and suitable Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat is present on adjacent properties north and east of the project site. Swainson’s hawks readily habituate to a variety of human disturbances including construction. Swainson’s hawk nests are often found along busy roadways and in a variety of settings where substantial noise and other disturbances occur, including in agricultural areas. There are conditions, however, where the potential for abandonment is increased. This can occur when new disturbances are introduced to an otherwise open, rural setting. Under these conditions, no-disturbance buffers are important to avoid nest abandonment. No-disturbance buffers are intended to prevent all ground-disturbing activities and project-related entry of any sort into the buffer area. Although tolerant of human presence and activities, Swainson’s hawks are most sensitive to direct observation of the nest by people.
Therefore, restrictions within buffers should prohibit all entry and direct observation of the nest.
If a Swainson’s hawk nest is active on or near the project site during construction, the proposed project could impact this species in several ways:
27 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020. CNDDB RareFind 5 California Natural Diversity Database Query for SpecialStatus Species. Website: https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx. Accessed October 20, 2022. 28 California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2020. California Native Plant Society Rare and Endangered Plant Inventory. Website:
http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/. Accessed October 20, 2022. 2545
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Biological Resources Draft EIR
3.4-20
• The proposed project could cause direct harm to the species by the destruction of active nests during tree removal activities.
• The proposed project could cause indirect harm to the species through the noise, light and other man-made disturbances resulting from project construction and operation, which may result in this species abandoning its nests.
The project developer would be responsible for compliance with all applicable laws and regulations in place protecting Swainson’s hawk, including applicable provisions of CESA, MBTA, and the Fish and Game Code. These laws and regulations are described in Section 3.4.3 and are designed to reduce potential project-related impacts on Swainson’s hawk.
The project site does not currently provide foraging habitat due to the existing orchard operations.
Therefore, development of the proposed project would not remove foraging area for this species.
To further reduce potential impacts on Swainson’s hawk to less than significant levels under CEQA and avoid the “take” of a Swainson’s hawk as defined by CESA, Mitigation Measures (MM) BIO-1a and MM BIO-1b will be required to increase the potential to detect Swainson’s hawk nests and to establish adequate nest protection zones to decrease the chance of accidental violation of the above laws and to conform with applicable CDFW Guidelines.
29 In 2000, the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee prepared the above-noted Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley that focused on the timing of surveys and, as an alternative to the 1994 CDFW guidance (requiring 0.5 mile no-disturbance buffer), provided information on disturbance buffers and the risk to active nests. Although the members of the Technical Advisory Committee and other biologists have years of supporting observational data from a variety of construction or other related disturbances, the distance guidance in the Technical Advisory Committee document primarily used data from the California Department of Water Resources Delta Temporary Barriers project and other Delta projects. Annual surveys and nest monitoring are conducted to avoid nest abandonment resulting from project activities. This has resulted in a more reasonable data-based approach to assessing disturbance impacts and establishing buffers. Based on these data, the Technical Advisory Committee guidance indicates that the lowest risk of nest abandonment is achieved at a distance of 600 feet. The Technical Advisory Committee guidance on distance buffers has been regularly used for many years as an alternative to the 1994 CDFW guidance. Therefore, it has been determined that a 600-foot no-disturbance buffer prohibiting all entry during the breeding season would be sufficient for the proposed project should an active Swainson’s hawk nest become established.
Western Burrowing Owl
While no suitable habitat for western burrowing owl exists on-site (see Section 3.4.2), and no burrowing owl or signs thereof were observed on adjacent fields during the time of the survey, it cannot be ruled out that nesting burrowing owl may be present within disturbance distance of the proposed project, which is currently considered to be 500 feet. If project activities include a 29 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2000. Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson's Hawk Nesting Surveys in California's Central Valley. Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee. Sacramento, California. May 31, 2000. 2546
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Biological Resources
3.4-21
significant increase in noise or other indirect disturbance of an active burrowing owl within 500 feet of an active burrowing nest were to occur, premature nest abandonment and loss of viable eggs or young could take place. Loss of burrowing owl would be considered a significant impact. However, with implementation of MM BIO-1c, detection and protection of active burrowing nests on adjacent fields would reduce this potential impact to less than significant.
San Joaquin Kit Fox
Potential presence of San Joaquin kit fox is unlikely because no signs of suitable denning habitat were observed during the field surveys, and if it occurred, San Joaquin kit fox presence would be limited to vagrant individuals dispersing across the project site in search of suitable habitat. The project site does not include suitable habitat and no suitable dens were observed on-site. However, a pre-construction survey to confirm absence of this species from the project site will be required (MM BIO-1d), and standard San Joaquin fox avoidance measures will follow to ensure that impacts would be less than significant.
American Badger
Potential presence of American badger is unlikely because no dens or burrows suitable for this species were observed during the field surveys, and if it occurred, American badger presence would be limited to vagrant individuals dispersing across the project site to find suitable habitat. The project site does not include suitable habitat and no suitable dens or burrows were observed on-site.
However, a pre-construction survey to confirm absence of this species from the project site shall be required (MM BIO-1d) to ensure that impacts would be less than significant. Standard avoidance measures for the San Joaquin kit fox (MM BIO-1d) would also act to protect the American badger.
Crotch’s Bumblebee
Potential presence of Crotch’s bumblebee is unlikely because entire project site consists of actively managed orchard and no required habitat elements for this species are present, and if it occurred, it would be limited to vagrant individuals dispersing across the project site to find suitable habitat. The project site does not include suitable habitat. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts on this species. However, a pre-construction survey to confirm absence of this species from the site shall be required (MM BIO-1d) to ensure that impacts would be less than significant.
Nesting Birds
Birds protected under the MBTA or California Fish and Game Code are legally protected and considered sensitive during the active nesting period and are therefore included in this impact analysis for special-status species. The extensive almond orchards, numerous ornamental trees, and the stand of large eucalyptus trees along (outside of) the southern boundary of the project site provide suitable habitat for a variety of species of nesting birds, including Swainson’s hawk.
Construction activities that occur during the avian nesting season (generally February 1 to August 31) could disturb nesting sites for bird species protected under the MBTA or the Fish and Game Code. Further, the removal of trees during the nesting season could result in direct harm to nesting birds, while noise, light and other man-made disturbances may cause nesting birds to abandon their nests.
2547
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Biological Resources Draft EIR
3.4-22
The project developer would be required to comply with all applicable laws and regulations protecting active bird nests, including MBTA and Fish and Game Code. These laws and regulations are described in Section 3.4.3 and are designed to reduce potential project-related impacts on protected nesting birds.
To reduce potential impacts on protected bird nests to less than significant levels, MM BIO-1e will be required to increase the potential to detect protected bird nests and to establish adequate nest protection zones to decrease the chance of accidental violation of applicable laws.
Roosting Bats
If protected bat roosts are present on the project site or within disturbance distance, demolition activities have the potential to disturb/disrupt protected bat roosts, potentially leading to direct destruction or premature roost abandonment and loss of bats (including young or rare/sensitive bat species).
The project developer would be required to comply with all applicable laws and regulations (including the Fish and Game Code) related to the take of non-game mammals naturally occurring in California, including bats. These laws and regulations are listed in Section 3.4.3 and are intended to reduce potential project-related impacts on naturally occurring non-game mammals, including bats.
To reduce potential impacts on roosting bats to less than significant levels, MM BIO-1f will be required to increase the potential to detect protected bat roosts and reduce the likelihood of disturbing or disrupting such roosts.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1a Pre-construction Surveys for Swainson’s Hawk
Prior to initial ground disturbance or building permits of any project area, if during the nesting season for Swainson’s hawk (March 20 to July 20), a qualified Biologist shall conduct Swainson’s hawk nesting surveys on-site and within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site to determine whether nests are present and if so, occupied.
Occupancy shall be determined through observation of all accessible areas, including from public roads or other publicly accessible observation areas of Swainson’s hawk activity (e.g., foraging) on and near the project site. If ground disturbance occurs outside the nesting season, no further action is required.
A qualified Biologist shall follow the survey protocol outlined in the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley, which recommends surveys according to the following survey periods:
1. January–March 20: Conduct one survey total.
2548
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Biological Resources
3.4-23
2. March 20–April 5: Conduct three surveys total. Surveys shall be conducted between sunrise to 10:00 a.m. and/or 4:00 p.m. to sunset.
3. April 5–April 20: Conduct three surveys total. Surveys shall be conducted between sunrise to 12:00 p.m. and/or 4:30 p.m. to sunset.
4. April 21–June 10: Initiating surveys are not recommended. Monitoring of known nest sites only.
5. June 10–July 30: (post-fledging) Conduct three surveys total. Surveys shall be conducted between sunrise to 12:00 p.m. and/or 4:00 p.m. to sunset.
Pre-construction surveys shall be completed for at least the two survey periods immediately prior to the subject ground-disturbing activities being initiated, with the latest survey no more than 10 days prior to the start of the subject grounddisturbing A copy of the survey results shall be submitted to the lead agency as evidence of compliance.
MM BIO-1b Swainson’s Hawk Avoidance and Minimization and Construction Monitoring If nests are located and determined to be occupied, minimization measures must be implemented by the relevant applicant in connection with a specific individual development application, and construction monitoring conducted as follows:
1. Construction activities shall be prohibited within 600 feet of an active and occupied Swainson’s hawk nest or within 600 feet of nests under construction to prevent nest abandonment unless a smaller buffer is approved pursuant to subsection (2) below. This incorporates the maximum avoidance buffer size stated in the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley.
2. If site-specific conditions or the nature of the construction activity (e.g., other nearby development, limited activities) indicate that a smaller buffer, or no buffer at all, could be used, the project developer may seek approval from the qualified Biologist who, in coordination with the CDFW, shall determine the appropriate buffer size, which, once approved, shall govern.
3. No tree containing an active Swainson’s hawk nest shall be removed.
If (i) no nests are located or (ii) if nests are located and determined not to be occupied, then no minimization measures shall need to be implemented and no further mitigation under MM BIO-1b shall be required.
MM BIO-1c Pre-construction Surveys for Burrowing Owl (includes avoidance and passive relocation if found)
To determine whether burrowing owl have occupied the project site prior to its development, a qualified Biologist shall perform a pre-construction burrowing owl survey to determine burrow locations within 30 days prior to construction activities 2549
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Biological Resources Draft EIR
3.4-24
using California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Guidelines. If construction is delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the survey, the area shall be resurveyed. Surveys for occupied burrows shall be completed within all construction areas and within 300 feet of the proposed project impact area (where possible and appropriate based on locations of barren or ruderal habitats). At least 15 days prior to the expected start, or restart, of any project-related ground disturbance activities, the project applicant shall provide a burrowing owl survey report with mapping exhibits to the CDFW. If no burrowing owl are detected during the pre-construction survey, no further action is necessary.
If burrowing owl are detected during the pre-construction survey, the following actions shall be taken to offset impacts during construction (as outlined in the CDFW 2012 Guidelines):
• During the nonbreeding season (September 1 through January 31), no disturbance shall occur within an approximately 160-foot radius of an occupied burrow. During the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), occupied burrows shall not be disturbed within a 300-foot radius unless a qualified Biologist approved by the CDFW verifies through non-invasive methods that either (1) the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation or (2) that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival.
• If owls must be moved away from the disturbance area, passive relocation techniques (as outlined by the CDFW [i.e., use of one-way doors]) should be used rather than trapping. At least one or more weeks will be necessary to accomplish this and to allow the owls to acclimate to alternate burrows. • If unpaired owls or paired owls are present in or within 300 feet of areas scheduled for disturbance or degradation (e.g., grading) and nesting is not occurring, owls are to be removed per CDFW-approved passive relocation protocols. Passive relocation requires the use of one-way exclusion doors, which must remain in place at least 48 hours prior to site disturbance to ensure owls have left the burrow prior to construction. A CDFW-approved exclusion plan would be required to implement this measure.
• If paired owls are nesting in areas scheduled for disturbance or degradation, nest(s) shall be avoided from February 1 through August 31 by a minimum 300- foot buffer or until fledging has occurred. Following fledging, owls may be passively relocated.
MM BIO-1d Pre-construction Special-status Species Wildlife Surveys and Protective Measures if Found, Including Standard Avoidance Measures for San Joaquin Kit Fox.
Not more than 14 days before start of ground disturbance, a qualified Biologist shall conduct surveys to determine the presence/absence of the following special-status wildlife species: Crotch’s bumblebee, San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, and American badger. Should any of the foregoing special-status wildlife species be 2550
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Biological Resources
3.4-25
detected, the qualified Biologist shall coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and/or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (as appropriate) to determine adequate protection measures as may be required under applicable laws and regulations, and the relevant project developer shall implement all such measures in connection with the development proposal at issue.
Copies of all reports and communication with the appropriate wildlife agencies shall be submitted to the lead agency as evidence of compliance.
The following standardized recommendations as outlined by the USFWS for the protection of San Joaquin Kit Fox shall be implemented during project construction:
1. Project-related vehicles should observe a daytime speed limit of 20-mph throughout the site in all project areas, except on county roads and State and Federal highways; this is particularly important at night when kit foxes are most active. Night-time construction should be minimized to the extent possible.
However if it does occur, then the speed limit should be reduced to 10-mph. Offroad traffic outside of designated project areas should be prohibited.
2. To prevent inadvertent entrapment of kit foxes or other animals during the construction phase of a project, all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than 2-feet deep should be covered at the close of each working day by plywood or similar materials. If the trenches cannot be closed, one or more escape ramps constructed of earthen-fill or wooden planks shall be installed.
Before such holes or trenches are filled, they should be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. If at any time a trapped or injured kit fox is discovered, the Service and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) shall be contacted as noted under measure 13 referenced below.
3. Kit foxes are attracted to den-like structures such as pipes and may enter stored pipes and become trapped or injured. All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of 4-inches or greater that are stored at a construction site for one or more overnight periods should be thoroughly inspected for kit foxes before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. If a kit fox is discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe should not be moved until the Service has been consulted. If necessary, and under the direct supervision of the Biologist, the pipe may be moved only once to remove it from the path of construction activity, until the fox has escaped.
4. All food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps should be disposed of in securely closed containers and removed at least once a week from a construction or project site.
5. No firearms shall be allowed on the project site.
6. No pets, such as dogs or cats, should be permitted on the project site to prevent harassment, mortality of kit foxes, or destruction of dens.
7. Use of rodenticides and herbicides in project areas should be restricted. This is necessary to prevent primary or secondary poisoning of kit foxes and the 2551
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Biological Resources Draft EIR
3.4-26
depletion of prey populations on which they depend. All uses of such compounds should observe label and other restrictions mandated by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and other State and Federal legislation, as well as additional projectrelated restrictions deemed necessary by the Service. If rodent control must be conducted, zinc phosphide should be used because of a proven lower risk to kit fox.
8. A representative shall be appointed by the project proponent who will be the contact source for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or injure a kit fox or who finds a dead, injured or entrapped kit fox. The representative will be identified during the employee education program and their name and telephone number shall be provided to the Service.
9. An employee education program should be conducted for any project that has anticipated impacts to kit fox or other endangered species. The program should consist of a brief presentation by persons knowledgeable in kit fox biology and legislative protection to explain endangered species concerns to contractors, their employees, and military and/or agency personnel involved in the project.
The program should include the following: A description of the San Joaquin kit fox and its habitat needs; a report of the occurrence of kit fox in the project area; an explanation of the status of the species and its protection under the Endangered Species Act; and a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts to the species during project construction and implementation. A fact sheet conveying this information should be prepared for distribution to the previously referenced people and anyone else who may enter the project site.
10. Upon completion of the project, all areas subject to temporary ground disturbances, including storage and staging areas, temporary roads, pipeline corridors, etc. should be re-contoured if necessary, and revegetated to promote restoration of the area to pre-project conditions.
11. In the case of trapped animals, escape ramps or structures should be installed immediately to allow the animal(s) to escape, or the Service should be contacted for guidance.
12. Any contractor, employee, or military or agency personnel who are responsible for inadvertently killing or injuring a San Joaquin kit fox shall immediately report the incident to their representative. This representative shall contact the CDFG immediately in the case of a dead, injured or entrapped kit fox.
13. The Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office and CDFG shall be notified in writing within three working days of the accidental death or injury to a San Joaquin kit fox during project related activities. Notification must include the date, time, and location of the incident or of the finding of a dead or injured animal and any other pertinent information.
14. New sightings of kit fox shall be reported to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). A copy of the reporting form and a topographic map clearly marked with the location of where the kit fox was observed should also be provided to the Service at the address below.
2552
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Biological Resources
3.4-27
MM BIO-1e Protection of Active Bird Nests (includes pre-construction survey and implementation of avoidance buffer, if found).
1. Removal of trees shall occur in compliance with and as required by the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance
2. If project development requires trees to be removed during the nesting season, pre-construction nesting bird surveys shall be conducted 7 days prior to tree removal to determine whether active nests are present.
3. If an active nest is located during pre-construction surveys, a qualified Biologist shall determine an appropriately sized avoidance buffer based on species and anticipated disturbance level. The buffer shall be 250 feet for migratory bird species and 500 feet for raptors. That no-disturbance buffer can be reduced if it is determined whether a qualified on-site monitor determines through monitoring the effects of activities on the nest that the buffer can be reduced without nest abandonment or otherwise affecting nest success.
4. The relevant applicant of the proposed development at issue shall physically mark the nest protection zone with Environmentally Sensitive Area fencing, pin flags, and/or yellow caution tape. The nest protection zone shall be maintained around the active nest site(s) until the young have fledged and are foraging independently, as determined by a qualified Biologist. No construction activities or construction foot traffic is allowed to occur within the nest protection zones until the young have fledged and are foraging independently, as determined by a qualified Biologist.
5. The qualified Biologist shall monitor the active nest(s) periodically during construction activities to prevent any significant impacts that may result from the construction of the proposed project, until the young have fledged. Copies of the survey report shall be submitted to the lead agency as evidence of compliance.
If no active nests are located, then no minimization measures shall need to be implemented and no further mitigation under this MM BIO-1e shall be required.
MM BIO-1f Protection of Roosting Bats (includes pre-construction survey and implementation of avoidance buffer, if found).
If tree removal or demolition of existing structures is proposed in connection with project development, trees and/or structures with features capable of supporting roosting bats shall be surveyed by a qualified Biologist for bat roosts or evidence of bat roosting (guano, urine staining and scent, dead bats) not more than 14 days before the start of ground disturbance, including vegetation removal. If active roosts are discovered, a protection zone of no less than 50 feet around the active roost shall be established by the qualified Biologist. Disturbance may occur within the buffer once active roosting ceases, as determined by the qualified Biologist. 2553
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Biological Resources Draft EIR
3.4-28
If roosts are determined to be present and must be removed, the bats shall be excluded from the roosting site before the tree or structure is removed. A bat Exclusion Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prior to implementation. Exclusion methods may include use of one-way doors at roost entrances (bats may leave, but not reenter), or sealing roost entrances when the site can be confirmed to contain no bats. Exclusion efforts shall be restricted during periods of sensitive activity (e.g., during hibernation or while females in maternity colonies are nursing young). Copies of the survey report shall be submitted to the lead agency as evidence of compliance. If no active roosts are located, then no minimization measures shall need to be implemented and no further mitigation under this MM BIO-1f shall be required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
Sensitive Natural Communities or Riparian Habitat
Impact BIO-2: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service?
None of the vegetation communities on-site and described in Section 3.4.2 are considered riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. No sensitive natural communities are present onsite, and there is no riparian habitat present on-site. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Wetlands and Jurisdictional Features
Impact BIO-3: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? The proposed project involves the removal or modification of the existing retention basin and would potentially require new culvert crossings over Modoc Ditch and extension of one existing culvert crossing (Exhibit 3.4-2).
As stated in Section 3.4.2, Modoc Ditch and the retention basin are not expected to be considered State- or federally protected aquatic resources pursuant to CWA Sections 404/401 and/or Fish and Game Code Section 1602. Moreover, because both features are parts of actively managed irrigation infrastructure, and therefore disconnected from natural flows downstream, it is not expected that 2554
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Biological Resources
3.4-29
the proposed modifications would cause indirect impacts on State- or federally protected aquatic resources downstream.
A preliminary JD was conducted for the proposed project (Appendix C). According to the JD, the Modoc Ditch is likely an irrigation ditch that was solely constructed for the purposes of irrigation of agricultural areas. It has no downstream connection to federal or State water resources. The Modoc Ditch upstream connection to the Saint John’s River is likely artificial, and if irrigation activities surround the Modoc Ditch were to end, water would stop flowing into the ditch and it would subsequently dry up. Therefore, impacts to the Modoc Ditch would likely be exempt from permitting with the RWQCB due to the lack of connection to waters of the State and the status as an irrigation ditch constructed in an otherwise upland area, solely for the purpose of agricultural irrigation.
Modoc Ditch also lacks native plant communities or habitats and is of a low-quality habitat for wildlife. Therefore, impacts to Modoc Ditch would not likely require permitting with CDFW due to the project impacts not resulting in negative effects to habitat for wildlife or aquatic habitats.
Regardless, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable federal and State water quality laws and regulations, including CWA 402 (NPDES), and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (including stormwater control permits), and Fish and Game Code as described in Section 3.4.3. Compliance with all applicable provisions of the CWA and Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act would be sufficient for the proposed project to reduce potential impacts to State- and federally protected waters or wetlands to a less than significant level under CEQA.
It is notable that CDFW in its October 17, 2022, comment letter to the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project NOP (State Clearinghouse No. 2022080658) from October 17, 2022, submitted to the City of Visalia, the CDFW does not request submittal of a Notification of Streambed Alteration, indicating that none is required. No additional mitigation measures would typically be warranted in such instances.
However, in accordance with City standards and to further confirm that the project site does not contain any State or federally protected aquatic resources, MM BIO-3 shall be required for the proposed project.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-3 The project developer shall submit the preliminary Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) and coordinate with the appropriate regulating agencies (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB], California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] and the United States Army Corps of Engineers [USACE]) to determine whether the Modoc Ditch is protected under Section 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and/or Fish and Game Code 1602.
If Modoc Ditch is considered jurisdictional by the regulating agencies, the relevant project developer shall, in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, 2555
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Biological Resources Draft EIR
3.4-30
obtain the relevant permit applications based on coordination with the appropriate regulating agencies, if required prior to impacting any waters.
As part of these authorizations, compensatory mitigation may be required by the regulating agencies to offset the loss of aquatic resources. If so, and as part of the permit application process, a qualified professional shall draft a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to address implementation and monitoring requirements under the permit(s) to ensure that the subject development proposal would result in no net loss of habitat functions and values. The Plan shall contain, at a minimum, mitigation goals and objectives, mitigation location, a discussion of actions to be implemented to mitigate the impact, monitoring methods and performance criteria, extent of monitoring to be conducted, actions to be taken in the event that the mitigation is not successful, and reporting requirements. The Plan shall be approved by the appropriate regulatory agencies and compensatory mitigation shall take place either on-site or at an appropriate off-site location, if required. Copies of the Plan and associated report shall be submitted to the lead agency as evidence of compliance.
Any material/spoils generated from project activities containing hazardous materials shall be located away from jurisdictional areas or special-status habitat and protected from stormwater runoff using temporary perimeter sediment barriers such as berms, silt fences, fiber rolls, covers, sand/gravel bags, and straw bale barriers, as appropriate and feasible. Protection measures should follow projectspecific criteria as developed in a Storm Water Pollution Prevention and Protection Plan (SWPPP).
Equipment containing hazardous liquid materials shall be stored on impervious surfaces or plastic ground covers to prevent any spills or leakage from contaminating the ground and at least 50 feet outside the delineated boundary of jurisdictional water features.
Any spillage of material shall be stopped if it can be done safely and in a feasible manner. In the event of any such spillage, the contaminated area shall be cleaned by the party responsible for the spillage, and any contaminated materials properly disposed. For all spills, the project foreman or designated environmental representative shall be notified.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
Fish and Wildlife Movement Corridors
Impact BIO-4: 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 wildlife nursery sites? 2556
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Biological Resources
3.4-31
Most of the site consists of actively managed orchards and does not contain habitat features such as riparian corridors that could function as wildlife corridors. Additionally, the project site is surrounded by active roadways, active agriculture, and industrial and residential development, all of which impede the movement of wildlife and limit the use of the project site as a potential corridor for wildlife movement. The project site is not within a known wildlife corridor.
While the project site does is not within a known wildlife corridor, active bird nests and bat maternity roosts are potential wildlife nursery sites. Potential project-related impacts on active bird nests and bat roosts are analyzed and discussed under Impact BIO-1 and are considered potentially significant. However, implementation of MM BIO-1e and MM BIO-1f would avoid significant impacts on active bird nests and bat roosts by establishing protection zones if nests or roosts are found and would reduce this impact to less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Implement MM BIO-1e and MM BIO-1f.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
Local Policies or Ordinances
Impact BIO-5: Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? The valley oak (Section 3.4.2; Exhibit 3.4-1) rooted across Modoc Ditch with its canopy overhanging the project site is protected under the City’s Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance, including against “Encroachment into canopy dripline of oak trees during construction” (Article 4; Section 3.4.3). The proposed project involves no vertical structures, soil disturbance or access road construction at this location (Exhibit 3.4-2). Therefore, impacts on the valley oak would be less than significant.
The proposed project would require removal of up to approximately 1.19 acre of non-native ornamental trees. These trees would only be considered protected or regulated if they are within the City’s right-of-way. This may be the case for the cedar tree in the southeast corner of the project site, potentially within the right-of-way of Riggin Avenue.
With compliance with the City’s Street Tree Ordinance, however, potential impacts on trees regulated by the City’s Street Tree Ordinance would be less than significant without additional mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
2557
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Biological Resources Draft EIR
3.4-32
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Local, Regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan
Impact BIO-6: Would the project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan?
The proposed project does not lie within the boundaries of any adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or State HCP. No impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance
No impact.
3.4.7 - Cumulative Impacts
The general geographic scope of the cumulative biological resources analysis is within the City of Visalia’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) as shown on Table 3-1. Existing cumulative projects in the geographic scope of the biological resources analysis include active mixed agriculture to the north and east, industrial complexes to the west and south, and a dairy farm to the south. The planned developments listed in Chapter 3, Environmental Impact Analysis, Table 3-1 are predominantly located in areas that have already been built out with limited potential to support special-status wildlife and plant species, wildlife corridors and wildlife nursery sites, and protected trees.
Furthermore, as noted below, there is a comprehensive regulatory framework that is imposed on cumulative projects to help ensure protected biological resources are identified and any significant impacts are feasibly mitigated. Accordingly, there is a low likelihood of special-status wildlife or plants, wildlife corridors or nursery sites, or protected trees occurring within these urban cumulative project areas due to past ground disturbance and planned for development.
Special-status Species
Cumulative projects within the cumulative geographic context would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and policies and all applicable permitting requirements of the regulatory and oversight agencies intended to address potential impacts on biological resources. Cumulative projects would be required to adhere to standard pre-construction surveys and implement, if necessary, avoidance procedures would be required for projects with the potential to impact special-status wildlife species (see, e.g., MM BIO-1a through MM BIO-1d). Given the already urbanizing nature of the cumulative geographic context and because cumulative development would be required to comply with the above requirements, as well as applicable General Plan and Municipal Code requirements (as described in Section 3.4.3, Regulatory Framework) cumulative biological impacts related to special-status species would be less than significant.
2558
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Biological Resources
3.4-33
Special-status Plant Species
The proposed project’s incremental contribution to less than significant cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Based on reasonable assumptions, this analysis concludes that no cumulative impacts on special-status plant species would result from the cumulative projects shown on Exhibit 3-1 due to the low probability of special-status plants to occur on active agricultural lands, and the generally applicable laws and regulations protecting special-status plant species. Therefore, this would constitute a less than significant cumulative impact.
Moreover, there would be no direct or indirect impacts to special-status plant species or to designated or proposed critical habitat for plant species on the project site. No suitable habitat for these species occurs within the project site and none were identified during the field survey.
Therefore, because none are present on the project site, implementation of the proposed project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this already less than significant cumulative effects to special-status plants.
Special-status Wildlife Species
As discussed above, because cumulative development would be required to comply with the applicable requirements as described in the Regulatory Framework section, cumulative biological impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts on these protected functional groups are expected.
Moreover, the proposed project’s incremental contribution to less than significant cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. The project site is an actively managed orchard with a few ornamental trees, and provides negligible habitat value for special-status wildlife species.
No special-status species are expected to successfully establish at the project site long term.
Therefore, no cumulative impacts on special-status wildlife species are expected.
Additionally, upon compliance with applicable laws and regulations, and the implementation of recommended mitigation measures (MM BIO-1a, MM BIO-1b, MM BIO-1c, and MM BIO-1d), potential short-term impacts to special-status wildlife species due to the proposed project are not expected to be significant. Potential project-related impacts on protected active bird nests and bat roosts will be avoided by compliance with the MBTA and Fish and Game Code, and through implementation of MM BIO-1e and MM BIO-1f. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to substantially affect regional populations and would not be cumulatively significant.
Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Communities Within the cumulative project areas, development would not directly and significantly impact riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities because they are largely located in previously developed or disturbed areas. Most of the current developments are designed to address future growth problems, prevent urban sprawl, and minimize developmental impacts to sensitive natural communities. Cumulative projects within the cumulative geographic context would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and policies relating to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. Additionally, implementation of applicable General Plan and Municipal Code requirements (as described in Section 3.4.3, Regulatory Framework) would 2559
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Biological Resources Draft EIR
3.4-34
result in less than significant cumulative impact to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities.
Additionally, because none of the vegetation communities on the project site are riparian or otherwise sensitive natural communities, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to this cumulative impact on sensitive natural communities and riparian habitat.
State or Federally Protected Waters and Wetlands
Within the cumulative project areas, development would not directly and significantly impact sensitive natural communities and/or the aquatic resources outlined above because they are largely sited in previously developed or highly disturbed areas. Furthermore, cumulative projects with the potential to impact wetlands, other waters, or riparian habitat would be required to adhere to any applicable laws and regulations including, for example, consultation that may be required with the applicable regulatory agencies, the quantification of their potential impacts in a formal JD, and implementation of any required mitigation pursuant to applicable laws and regulations. As such, there is a less than significant cumulative impact.
Additionally, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to this already less than significant cumulative impact. The Modoc Ditch and the retention basin present on-site are not expected to be considered State- or federally protected aquatic resources pursuant CWA Sections 404/401 and/or Fish and Game Code Section 1602. However, in line with the City’s standard practice, MM BIO-3a is included in the proposed project. The implementation of MM BIO3a would ensure potential significant impacts to State or federally protected waters and wetlands would be identified and avoided to the extent feasible, and the proposed project would otherwise be required to comply with the comprehensive regulatory framework to the extent applicable.
Therefore, the development of the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to this already less than significant cumulative impacts on State- or federally protected waters and wetlands.
Local Policies or Ordinances
It is reasonably foreseeable that other cumulative projects identified in Table 3-1 may result in the removal of trees, which would be governed by the applicable local protection ordinance including the City’s Street Tree Ordinance and relevant General Plan Policies. Therefore, impacts in this regard would not be cumulatively significant.
Moreover, development of the proposed project and any related development of cumulative projects would not result in any conflicts with local tree policies or ordinances protecting trees or other biological resources given that the proposed project would be required to adhere to all applicable standards and mandates, including, among others, the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance.
As such, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution on this already less than significant cumulative impact. The proposed project would require removal of up to approximately 1.19 acres of non-native ornamental trees. These trees would only be considered protected or regulated if they are within the City’s right-of-way. With compliance with the City’s 2560
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Biological Resources
3.4-35
Street Tree Ordinance, however, potential impacts on trees regulated by the City’s Street Tree Ordinance would be less than significant without additional mitigation.
Fish and Wildlife Movement Corridors
The planned developments listed in Chapter 3, Environmental Impact Analysis, Table 3-1 are predominantly located in areas that have already been built out or with limited potential to support wildlife corridors. Cumulative projects within the cumulative geographic context would be required to comply with applicable General Plan Policies and Municipal Code requirements (as described in Section 3.4.3, Regulatory Framework Section) that protect fish and wildlife movement corridors.
With implementation of these policies cumulative projects would result in less than significant cumulative impact to fish and wildlife movement corridors.
The project site does not function as a wildlife corridor. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project would not cause or contribute to any cumulative impacts in this regard.
Wildlife Nursery Sites
The planned developments listed in Chapter 3, Environmental Impact Analysis, Table 3-1 are predominantly located in areas that have already been built out or have limited potential to support wildlife nursey sites. Cumulative projects within the cumulative geographic context would be required to comply with applicable General Plan Policies, Municipal Code requirements, and other applicable regulations (as described in Section 3.4.3, Regulatory Framework) that protect wildlife nursey sites. With implementation of these policies cumulative projects would result in less than significant cumulative impact to wildlife nursery.
Nesting birds and roosting bats, including groups of species that are protected under federal and State law and are considered sensitive and protected under certain conditions (e.g., when nesting, breeding), are known to use the sites within the cumulative development areas for nesting and roosting. Removal of tall nest trees that are critical for species reliant on taller nest trees (e.g., the ash and pine trees on-site), may contribute to significant cumulative impacts on loss of suitable nest trees for bird species reliant on tall trees (e.g., Buteo species), if similar trees nearby are also removed, and not replaced in kind. Therefore, there are potential cumulative impacts to wildlife nursery sites.
Potential project-related impacts on active bird nests and bat roosts are analyzed and discussed under Impact BIO-1 and are considered potentially significant. However, implementation of MM BIO1e and MM BIO-1f would avoid impacts on active bird nests and bat roosts by establishing protection zones if nests or roosts are found and would reduce this impact to less than significant. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project would not cause or contribute to any significant cumulative impacts in this regard.
Habitat and Natural Community Conservation Plan Consistency There is no adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or State HCP within the geographic scope of this cumulative analysis. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Additionally, the proposed project does not lie within the boundaries of any adopted HCP, NCCP, or 2561
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Biological Resources Draft EIR
3.4-36
other approved local, regional, or State HCP. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project would not cause or contribute to any cumulative impacts in this regard.
Level of Cumulative Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of MM BIO-1a through MM BIO-1f and MM BIO-3.
Level of Cumulative Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. 2562
41150039 • 11/2022 | 3.4-1_land_cover_veg.mxd
Exhibit 3.4-1
Land Cover and Vegetation
Source: Bing Aerial Imagery.
CITY OF VISALIA
SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
500 250 0 500
Feet
Legend
Project Site 284.58 acres
Land Cover and Vegetation
Access Road (dirt) 6.61 acres
Almond orchards 275.09 acres
Irrigation Cannal 1.41 acres
Ornamental Trees 1.19 acres
Retention Pond 0.28 acre
Valley Oak
2563
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2564
41150039 • 11/2022 | 3.4-2_bio_impacts.mxd
Exhibit 3.4-2
Impacts on Biological Resources
Source: Bing Aerial Imagery. 4-Creeks, July 2022.
CITY OF VISALIA
SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
500 250 0 500
Feet
Legend
Project Site 284.58 acres
Limits of Disturbance (LOD)
Land Cover and Vegetation Project Site LOD
Access Road (dirt) 6.61 acres 4.61 acres
Almond orchards 275.09 acres 260.93 acres
Irrigation Cannal 1.41 acres 0.05 acre
Ornamental Trees 1.19 acres 1.18 acres
Retention Pond 0.28 acre 0.23 acre
Valley Oak
2565
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2566
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5-1
3.5 - Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5.1 - Introduction
This section describes the existing cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) setting and potential effects that may result from project implementation on the project site and its surrounding area. The descriptions and analysis in this section are based, in part, on information provided by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), a records search conducted at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC), archival research, and a pedestrian survey as presented in the Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment (Phase I CRA) prepared for the proposed project, which is included in Appendix D. This appendix contains sensitive information relating to cultural resources and is not available for public distribution pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21082.3(C)(2).
A copy of it is on file with the City and is available to qualified professionals upon request. The applicable regulatory framework is also discussed below. In addition, recommendations provided in the Phase I CRA pertaining to feasible mitigation of identified potential significant impacts to cultural and TCRs are also addressed in this section.
One comment letter was received from the NAHC with respect to the scope of environmental review, indicating the receipt of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) pertaining to this Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) and including a request for consultation for the proposed project. The letter contained information pertaining to the lead agency's obligations under Assembly Bill (AB) 52.
Overview
The term “cultural resources” encompasses historic resources, archaeological resources, TCRs and burial sites, which are generally defined as follows:
• Historic Resources: Historic resources are associated with the recent past. In California, historic resources are typically associated with the Spanish, Mexican, and American periods in the State’s history and are generally less than 200 years old. Historic resources often take the form of buildings, structures, and other elements of the built environment. • Archaeological Resources: Archaeology is the study of artifacts and material culture with the aim of understanding human activities and cultures in the past. Archaeological resources may be associated with precontact indigenous cultures as well as later historic periods. • Tribal Cultural Resources: TCRs include sites, features, places, or objects that are of cultural value to one or more California Native American Tribes. • Burial Sites and Cemeteries: Burial sites and cemeteries are formal or informal locations where human remains have been interred. Burial sites may be associated with precontact indigenous cultures as well as later historic periods.
More specifically, cultural resources may be understood as resources that have been formally recognized by a lead agency and/or are listed or determined eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 5024.1, Title 14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] § 4852). However, the fact that a resource is not yet identified as a 2567
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-2
historical resource or found eligible for the CRHR does not preclude a lead agency from determining that said resource is a historical resource pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource would constitute a significant effect on the environment.
3.5.2 - Environmental Setting
Cultural Setting
Following is a brief overview of the relevant prehistory, ethnography, and historic background, providing context in which to understand the background and relevance of sites found in the general project vicinity. This section is not intended to be a comprehensive review of the current academic resources available; rather, it serves as a general overview. Unless otherwise stated, information contained in this section is drawn directly from the Phase I CRA conducted by FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS).
1 Further details can be found in ethnographic studies, mission records, and major published sources in the Phase I CRA.
Prehistory
Early archaeological investigations in the San Joaquin Valley of California have primarily been conducted at sites located in the Buena Vista and Tulare Lakes regions. These investigations of the artifacts of the San Joaquin Valley’s prehistoric cultural groups have revealed a complex history of cultural change that has occurred over time. Through these studies, a cultural chronological framework encompassing three basic periods has been developed. These patterns include:
• Early Period (12,000 Before Present [BP] to 8000 BP)
• Middle Period (8000 BP to 2500 BP)
• Late Period (2500 BP to Ethnohistoric Present)
Brief descriptions of these temporal ranges and their unique characteristics follow.
Early Period (12,000 BP to 8000 BP)
Archaeological sites from the Early Period are not very well represented in the southern San Joaquin Valley, partially due to periodic episodes of erosion and deposition that have removed or buried large segments of the Early Period landscape. Currently, the earliest evidence of human occupation in the region comes from fluted and basally thinned projectile points in the Tulare Lake basin at the Witt Site (KIN-32). Hundreds of Late Pleistocene concave base points have been discovered from human occupation along the remnant shoreline of Tulare Lake in southern Kings County. Artifacts from the Witt Site include Clovis-like projectile points made of chert, chipped crescents, various scrapers, and other stone tools associated with the Fluted Point and/or Western Pluvial Lakes tradition. The Witt Site also contained faunal bones from horse, bison, ground sloth, and the tusk of a mammoth or mastodon.
The bones, including some human bone, have been radiocarbon dated to 11,000 to 13,000 BP. 1 FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS). 2022. Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment. 2568
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5-3
Middle Period (8000 BP to 2500 BP)
The Middle Horizon is characterized by an increase in groundstone tools, including metates and manos. Middle Horizon site deposits include an abundance of expedient cobble-based pounding, chopping, scraping, and mulling tools, which reflect an increased dependence on vegetative foods that require processing. Archaeobotanical assemblages from foothill sites confirm that acorn and pine nuts were targeted food plants. However, the lithic technology remained relatively unchanged from the Early Period, in which stone tools were very similar to the Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition.
Late Period (2500 BP to Ethnohistoric Present)
The beginning of the Late Period corresponds with the onset of the Late Holocene environmental conditions, marked by an abrupt turn to cooler, wetter, and a more stable climate. Lakes that had dried or diminished during the later parts of the Middle Period returned to higher levels. Cultural diversity was more pronounced, marked by artifact styles, contrasting burial positions, and other elements of material culture. People were buried in flexed positions more frequently, and burial goods were more numerous than those from the Middle Period. Both the Olivella shell bead and bow-and-arrow technology made their first appearance in the area. There was also a greater reliance on groundstone tools, indicating an increased dependence on nuts, seeds, and acorns. Villages and smaller residential communities developed along the many streams of the foothills and along the river channels and sloughs of the valley bottom. Occupation sites were also larger, reflecting semisedentism.
Native American Background
Southern Valley Yokuts
At the time of European contact, most of the San Joaquin Valley and the foothills of the western slope of the Sierra Nevada were occupied by 40 or so groups, classified together as the Yokuts, with a Foothills division and a Valley division of language dialects. The Yokuts were recognized as having three major subgroups: the Northern Valley, the Foothill, and the Southern Valley. Each of these ethnolinguistic groups was composed of autonomous, culturally and linguistically related Tribes or Tribelets. Ethnographic evidence suggests the City of Visalia is located in part of the Southern Valley Yokuts territory. The Southern Valley Yokuts were divided into true Tribes, with individual Tribelets having their own name, dialect, and territory, and there is no evidence to suggest that they practiced any formal religion.
Alfred Kroeber divided a Yokuts classification system into Valley Divisions and Foothill Divisions based on ethnographic lines, geographic habitat, and dialect. Here, the Foothill Division’s worldview and economy were influenced more by their Shoshonean neighbors than the Valley Division Yokuts.
Later, William Wallace divided the Yokuts into three subgroups, Southern Valley, Northern Valley, and Foothill, and shifted the known Tribelets among these divisions. The following is a review of ethnographic information associated with the Southern Valley Yokuts, given the ethnographic evidence suggests the City of Visalia is located in this Tribe’s territory. The Southern Valley Yokuts occupied a rich environment with abundant water resources from the nearby sloughs, lake basins, and river systems. Swamps and tule marshes surrounded the waterways and teemed with wildlife, including aquatic mammals, fish, and waterfowl. Adjacent grasslands provided food for herds of elk, antelope, and (in the winter) deer. The regional flora was equally, if not more, diverse and was used as a main staple of the Yokuts diet. The Southern Valley Yokuts’ dietary base relied on a mixed 2569
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-4
strategy of fishing, waterfowl hunting, shellfish, and plant collecting, with less emphasis on largegame hunting. Important vegetal resources included cattail roots, grasses, nuts, seeds, tule, and bulbs. The resource-rich environment allowed for permanent village sites, which typically were occupied throughout the year.
Historic Background
The Spanish Period (1769–1821)
The formalization of Spanish routes in California were established by Father Junípero Serra and Gaspar de Portolà in 1769, in what was known as the Portolà Expedition. Although the Portolà party were not the first Europeans nor the first people to pass through the region, it was their observations and discoveries that formalized the routes and locations of the Mission System and facilitate trade and travel through California. The route used by Portolà was further explored in detail by Lieutenant Colonel Juan Bautista de Anza and Father Pedro Font during the Anza Expedition that lasted from 1775-1776. The Anza Expedition was considered pivotal as it helped to establish practical relationships with the natives, who at the time were revolting in San Diego, and to further explore and map Monterey and the San Francisco Bay Area.
The region that would become San Joaquin Valley was periodically visited by Franciscan friars scouting the area for mission sites, but a military expedition was led by Gabriel Moraga in September and October of 1806. The expedition started in San Juan Bautista and to the San Joaquin Plain. Once there, Moraga traversed several tributaries that flow to the San Joaquin River and discovered and named the Merced River. Moraga additionally came upon the Tuolumne, Stanislaus, and Mokelumne Rivers. Moraga’s expedition took him from the foot of the Sierras and the Rancherias between Kings River and Kern River. In 1808, Moraga traveled to Stockton and headed east to scouting sites for future missions. Moraga’s discoveries and mapping of the region contributed to the knowledge of the geography and ethnography of the area. This information served pivotal to Father Narciso Duran, Father Ramón Abella, and Lieutenant Luis Antonio Argüello, who followed the San Joaquin River at least as far as the Stockton Channel in 1817, meticulously mapping the area for future mission establishments. The diary kept by Father Duran helped to illustrate how the region appeared prior to colonization as well as initial contact with the Yokut people.
The Mexican Period (1821–1848)
In 1821, Mexico overthrew Spanish rule and the monopoly that the missions had in the area began to decline. By 1833, the Mexican government passed the Secularization Act, and the missions were reorganized as parish churches and lost their vast land holdings. Following the Secularization Act, the Mexican government initially planned on redistributing the land to the Native Americans; however, it was instead redistributed to prominent non-native citizens. The last of the mission land holdings were relinquished in 1845, which led the way for the large ranchos common to California in the mid1800s.
California experienced a period of success with the establishment of the ranchos, adopting the Spanish ranching traditions and focusing on the herding of cattle as well as adapting to the market trends of the time that included the trade of fur and pelts; however, the constant threat of Russian invasion, the illegal squatting of American immigrants, and a growing threat of rebellion from the mission Indians prevented the region from achieving socio-political stability. The growing tensions 2570
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5-5
between Mexicans and American settlers led to the Bear Flag Revolt of 1846, led by U.S. Army Captain John C. Fremont and Ezekiel Merritt against Mexican General Mariano Vallejo, who was attempting to bring aid to the Mexican governor of California in an effort to suppress the growing wave of support for an American coup of California. The rebellion concluded with the takeover of Sonoma, thus weakening the little control that Mexico had over Alta California and paving the way for the United States to seize control of the Pacific Coast shortly thereafter.
By 1846, on the eve of the Mexican-American War (1846 to 1848), the estimated population of California was 8,000 non-natives and 10,000 Native Americans. However, these estimates have been debated. Cook suggests the Native American population was 100,000 in 1850; the U.S. Census of 1880 reports the Native American population as 20,385.
Local History
Tulare County and City of Visalia
The end of the Mexican-American War and the discovery of gold in California in 1848 brought new settlers into the San Joaquin Valley. The area was known as “Four Creeks,” named after the watershed and creeks which flowed from snow melt in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. One of the first settlers in the region, Loomis St. John, built a cabin on the river that would bear his name in the northeast boundary of what would become the City of Visalia. In 1849, Nathaniel Vise surveyed the area and established a small settlement along the river near the cabin of Loomis St. John. Vise named the bourgeoning town “Visalia” after Visalia, Kentucky, where he was born. The town slowly grew, and by November 1852, Vise wrote that Visalia “contains from 60 to 80 inhabitants, 30 of whom are children of school age. The town is located upon one of the subdivisions of the Kaweah (River) and is destined to be the county seat of Tulare.” Tensions remained high in San Joaquin Valley between the new American settlers and the Yokuts Tribe in the early years of Visalia’s establishment. On December 1, 1850, John Woods arrived in the region with 14 men and settled on the bank of the Kaweah River, 7 miles east of Visalia. The Kawia Yokuts asserted that one of Woods men had captured and killed members of their Tribes. In retribution, the Yokuts surrounded Woods’ cabin and he was subsequently killed. Deemed the Woods Massacre, the California legislature sent soldiers from Fort Miller in the north down to Visalia in 1851 and constructed a fort along the Kaweah River. As more settlers moved into the region, the Yokuts were increasingly pushed out of their land.
On July 10, 1852, these settlers successfully petitioned the California State Legislature to establish Tulare County as a separate entity from the larger Mariposa County. Tulare County was further divided, creating Fresno, Kern, Kings, and Inyo counties. The county is named after Tulare Lake, which was at one point the largest freshwater lake west of the Great Lakes. The lake was drained for agricultural purposes and is now in Kings County, which was created in 1893 from the western portion of the formerly larger Tulare County. The county derives its name from the giant sedge plant called tule (too-lee), schoenoplectus acutus, which in the plant family Cyperaceae, that was native to freshwater marshes that lined the shores of Tulare Lake.
Visalia was made the seat of the new county and the City was officially incorporated on February 27, 1874. Although the search for gold initially brought settlers to Visalia, when gold failed to materialize 2571
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-6
in the San Joaquin Valley, many ended up settling there. The large oak forests in Visalia provided an easily accessible source of lumber for construction and the nearby St. John and Kaweah Rivers provided irrigation for agriculture. From the 1860s onward, Visalia’s economy was tied to agriculture with farms producing cotton, citrus, and olives for export to other regions in California.
During the Civil War, Visalia was divided between factions who supported either the North or South.
Fearing a potential uprising, the federal government intervened to ban Visalia's Equal Rights Expositor newspaper, which supported the South. They also established Camp Babbitt as a military garrison in the area to quell any potential rebellion.
Today, Visalia remains the county seat of Tulare County with a population of over 141,300 persons.
Agriculture remains a vital part of Visalia’s economy, with large farms producing corn, almond, citrus fruit, and olives. The downtown area is graced by historic brick buildings and Beaux Arts structures dating from the late nineteenth century.
3.5.3 - Methodology
Records Searches and Pedestrian Survey to Identify Existing Cultural Resources The information in this section is based, in part, on the Phase I CRA prepared for the proposed project by FCS in September 2022. The Phase I CRA used the methods below to analyze the potential impacts of project implementation.
Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center
On June 17, 2022, a records search was conducted at the SSJVIC located at the California State University, Bakersfield for the project site and a 0.5-mile radius2 beyond the project site boundaries.
The current inventories of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the CRHR, the California Historical Landmarks (CHL) list, the California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI) list, and the California Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) for Tulare County were also reviewed to determine the existence of previously documented local historical resources.
The results of the records search indicate that one historic era resource (Table 3.5-1) has been recorded off-site but within the 0.5-mile search radius, however, no resources were recorded within the project site boundary. In addition, three area-specific survey reports (Table 3.5-2) are on file with the SSJVIC for the project site and its 0.5-mile search radius. No reports address the project site specifically, indicating that it has not previously been surveyed for cultural resources.
Table 3.5-1: Cultural Resources within 0.5-mile of the Project Site Resource No. Resource Description Date Recorded
P-54-003602 Modoc Ditch (Historic Site): HP20 2000
Source: Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) Records Search. June 17, 2022. 2 A 0.5-mile radius is a standard search radius used for California Historic Resources Information System requests. 2572
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5-7
Table 3.5-2: Previous Investigations within 0.5-mile of the Project Site Report No. Report Title/Project Focus Author Date
TU-00628 The Archaeological Section of the Environmental Impact Report for Road 92 (Shirk Road) from State Highway 198
to Avenue 312 (Riggins Road)
Charlotte Williams 1974
TU-01069 Historic Properties Survey Report Road 80 Widening Project Tulare County, California
Mark Brown 2000
TU-01069A Historic Evaluation Report for the Road 80 Widening Project, Tulare County, California
Mark Brown 2000
TU-01069B Historic Architectural Survey Report for the Road 80 Widening Project, Tulare County, California
Janice C. Calpo 2000
TU-01149 Finding of No Adverse Effect Road 80 Widening Project, Tulare County, California
Janice C. Calpo 2001
Source: Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) Records Search. June 17, 2022.
Historic Maps and Aerial Photographs
Prior to the pedestrian survey, readily available historical aerial photographs were reviewed to evaluate land development and obtain information concerning the history of development on and near the project site. Eleven historic aerial photographs from 1956 to 2018 indicate the project site was in continuous agricultural use. During this period, several residential neighborhoods and commercial buildings were also developed south of the project site; the project site’s uses have remained relatively unchanged since 1956.
Native American Heritage Commission Record Search
On June 16, 2022, FCS sent a request to the NAHC to determine whether any sacred sites are listed on its Sacred Lands File for the project site and/or in the vicinity. A response was received on July 19, 2022, indicating that the Sacred Lands File search failed to locate the presence of Native American TCRs on the project site or within the immediate 0.5-mile vicinity. The NAHC provided a list of eight tribal representatives available for consultation.
To ensure that all Native American knowledge and concerns over potential TCRs that may be affected by the proposed project are addressed, a letter containing project information requesting any additional information was sent to each tribal representative on July 19, 2022. Two responses were received, on July 19, 2022, and on August 31, 2022.
Tribal Chairperson, Ron Goode, of the North Fork Mono Tribe, stated that the Tribe had no comments at this time; however, Chairperson Goode expressed concern about the source of water used for the development of the proposed project. See Section 3.15, Utilities and Service Systems, for analysis related to project water demand and cumulative water use. Cultural Specialist Monitor, Paige Berggren of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi-Yokut Tribe, stated that the Tribe has concerns about ground disturbance within the project site and requested that the Tribe be retained for Native 2573
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-8
American monitoring of any ground disturbance activities. The Tribe also requested a copy of the finalized cultural resources assessment report. No additional responses have been received to date.
The NAHC received the NOP for the proposed project dated September 8, 2022. Tribal consultation pursuant to AB 52 was initiated by the City and is ongoing, in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. On September 13, 2022, the City sent AB 52 notification letters to Tribal Representatives on the consultation list provided by the NAHC. The City conducted follow-up phone calls on October 12, 2022. No replies were recievd within the 30-day consultion period.
Cultural Resources Pedestrian Survey
On August 3 and August 4, 2022, FSC Senior Archaeologist Dana DePietro, PhD, RPA; Kweku Williams; Ti Ngo; and Sam Banderas conducted a pedestrian survey for unrecorded cultural resources in the project site. The survey began in the southwest corner of the project site and moved north and east, using north–south transects spaced at 15-meter intervals. All areas of the project site were closely inspected for culturally modified soils or other indicators of potential historic or prehistoric resources. The project site is located in an almond tree orchard. Visibility of native soils was high, averaging over 95 percent across the site. The soil in the western portion of the project site consisted of grayish brown (10 YR 5/2) sandy clay soil with little to no inclusions. Small granite stones less than 1 centimeter could be found in the northern boundary of the project site. The soil in the eastern portion of the project site was largely composed of light brownish yellow (10YR 6/4) silty and sandy clay soil, interspersed with quartz and basalt stones ranging from 2 to 5 centimeters.
Survey conditions were documented using digital photographs and field notes. During the survey, the team examined all areas of the exposed ground surface for prehistoric artifacts (e.g., fireaffected rock, milling tools, flaked stone tools, toolmaking debris, ceramics), soil discoloration, and depressions that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, faunal and human osteological remains, features indicative of the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., postholes, standing exterior walls, foundations), or historic debris (e.g., glass, metal, ceramics).
No indications of historic or prehistoric archaeological resources were found over the course of the pedestrian survey.
Buried Site Potential
In addition to the pedestrian survey, the potential for yet-identified cultural resources on-site and in the vicinity was reviewed against geologic and topographic geographic information system data for the general area and information from other nearby projects. The project site, along with the lands within the 0.5-acre radius, were evaluated against a set of criteria identified by a geoarchaeological overview of the Central Valley that was prepared for the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Districts 6 and 9. This study mapped the “archaeological sensitivity,” or potential to support the presence of buried prehistoric archaeological deposits, throughout the Central Valley based on geology and environmental parameters including distance to water and landform slope.
The methodology used in the study is applicable to other parts of California and concluded that sites consisting of flat, Holocene-era deposits in close proximity to water resources had a moderate to high probability of containing subsurface archaeological deposits when compared to earlier Pleistocene deposits situated on slopes or further away from drainages, lakes, and rivers. 2574
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5-9
The project site is situated on undeveloped agricultural land. According to the geological map of Matthew and Burnett, the project site is entirely situated upon Holocene Great Valley fan deposits.
Applying the criteria set forth above, all Holocene-era deposits have the potential to contain archaeological deposits, which increases with the ease of the slope and proximity to a water resource. Although the record search results and pedestrian survey did not identify the presence of any prehistoric and/or historic resources, the project site is situated south of the St. John’s River.
Therefore, the project site has moderate potential for unanticipated buried cultural resources to be located on-site, which then could be impacted by project construction.
3.5.4 - Regulatory Framework
Federal
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended, established the NRHP, which contains an inventory of the nation’s significant prehistoric and historic properties. Under 36 Code of Federal Regulations 60, a property is recommended for possible inclusion on the NRHP if it is at least 50 years old, has integrity, and meets one of the following criteria:
• It is associated with significant events in history, or broad patterns of events. • It is associated with significant people in the past. • It embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural type, period, or method of construction; or it is the work of a master or possesses high artistic value; or it represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. • It has yielded, or may yield, information important in history or prehistory.
Certain types of properties are usually excluded from consideration for listing in the NRHP, but they can be considered if they meet special requirements in addition to meeting the criteria listed above.
Such properties include religious sites, relocated properties, graves and cemeteries, reconstructed properties, commemorative properties, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years.
Archaeological Resources Protection Act
The Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) amended the Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 United States Code [USC] 431–433), set a broad policy that archaeological resources are important to the nation and should be protected, and required special permits before the excavation or removal of archaeological resources from public or Indian lands. The purpose of ARPA was to secure, for the present and future benefit of the American people, the protection of archaeological resources and sites that are on public lands and Indian lands and to foster increased cooperation and exchange of information between governmental authorities, the professional archaeological community, and private individuals having collections of archaeological resources and data that were obtained before October 31, 1979.
2575
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-10
American Indian Religious Freedom Act
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) established federal policy to protect and preserve the inherent rights of freedom for Native groups to believe, express, and exercise their traditional religions. These rights include but are not limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites.
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 sets provisions for the intentional removal and inadvertent discovery of human remains and other cultural items from federal and tribal lands. It clarifies the ownership of human remains and sets forth a process for repatriation of human remains and associated funerary objects and sacred religious objects to the Native American groups claiming to be lineal descendants or culturally affiliated with the remains or objects. It requires any federally funded institution housing Native American remains or artifacts to compile an inventory of all cultural items within the museum or with its agency and to provide a summary to any Native American Tribe claiming affiliation.
State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)—CEQA Definition of Historical Resources CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a), in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, defines a “historical resource” as:
(1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. (2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.
(3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered a historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. (4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in a historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be a historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1. 2576
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5-11
Therefore, under CEQA, even if a resource is not included on any local, State, or federal register or identified in a qualifying historical resources survey, a lead agency may still determine that any resource is a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA if there is substantial evidence supporting such a determination. A lead agency must consider a resource to be historically significant if it finds that the resource meets the criteria for listing in the CRHR.
Archaeological and historical sites are protected pursuant to a wide variety of State policies, laws and regulations, as enumerated in the Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. Cultural resources are recognized as nonrenewable resources and receive additional protection under the Public Resources Code and CEQA.
Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section15064.5(a)—Definition of a Historic Resource
Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a), in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, define a “historical resource” as a resource that:
(1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
(2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. (3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
(4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3)—California Register of Historical Resources Criteria As defined by CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(a)(3)(A-D), a resource shall be considered historically significant if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR. The CRHR and many local preservation ordinances have employed the criteria for eligibility to the NRHP as a model (see criteria described above under the description of the NHPA), since the NHPA provides the highest standard for evaluating the significance of historic resources. A resource that meets NRHP criteria is clearly significant. In addition, a resource that does not meet NRHP standards may still be considered historically significant at a local or State level.
CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(c)—Effects on Archaeological Resources CEQA Guidelines state that a resource need not be listed on any register to be found historically significant. CEQA Guidelines direct lead agencies to evaluate archaeological sites to determine whether they meet the criteria for listing in the CRHR. If an archaeological site is a historical resource, in that it is listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, potential adverse impacts to it must be considered. If an archaeological site is considered not to be a historical resource but meets the definition of a “unique archaeological resource” as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, then it would be treated in accordance with the provisions of that section. 2577
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-12
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(d)—Effects on Human Remains • Native American human remains and associated burial items may be significant to descendant communities and/or may be scientifically important for their informational value. They may be significant to descendant communities for patrimonial, cultural, lineage, and religious reasons.
Human remains may also be important to the scientific community, such as prehistorians, epidemiologists, and physical anthropologists. The specific stake of some descendant groups in ancestral burials is a matter of law for some groups, such as Native Americans (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(d); PRC § 5097.98). CEQA and other State laws and regulations regarding Native American human remains provide the following procedural requirements to assist in avoiding potential adverse effects on human remains within the contexts of their value to both descendant communities and the scientific community. When an initial study identifies the existence or probable likelihood that a project would affect Native American human remains, the lead agency is to contact and work with the appropriate Native American representatives identified through the NAHC to develop an agreement for the treatment and disposal of the human remains and any associated burial items (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(d); PRC § 5097.98).
• If human remains are accidentally discovered, the County Coroner must be contacted. If the County Coroner determines that the human remains are Native American, the Coroner must contact the NAHC within 24 hours. The NAHC must identify the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to provide for the opportunity to make recommendations for the treatment and disposal of the human remains and associated burial items (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(e)). • If the NAHC is unable to identify a MLD, the MLD fails to make recommendations within 24 hours of notification, or the project applicant rejects the recommendations of the MLD, the Native American human remains and associated burial items must be reburied in a location not subject to future disturbance on the property (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(e)). • If potentially affected human remains or a burial site may have scientific significance, whether or not it has significance to Native Americans or other descendant communities, then under CEQA, the appropriate mitigation of effect may require the recovery of the scientific information of the remains/burial through identification, evaluation, data recovery, analysis, and interpretation (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(c)).
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5
Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code sets forth provisions related to the treatment of human remains. As the code states, “every person who knowingly mutilates or disinters, wantonly disturbs, or willfully removes any human remains in or from any location other than a dedicated cemetery without authority of law is guilty of a misdemeanor” except under circumstances as provided in Section 5097.99 of the Public Resource Code. The regulations also provide guidelines for the treatment of human remains found in locations other than a dedicated cemetery including responsibilities of the Coroner.
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98
Section 5097.98 provides protocol for the discovery of human remains. It states that “whenever the commission receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a County 2578
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5-13
Coroner pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, it shall immediately notify persons believed to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American.” It also sets forth provisions for descendants’ preferences for treatment of the human remains and what should be done if the commission is unable to identify a descendant.
California Public Resources Code Section 5097.91—Native American Heritage Commission Section 5097.91 of the Public Resources Code established the NAHC, whose duties include the inventory of places of religious or social significance to Native Americans and the identification of known graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private lands. Under Section 5097.91 of the Public Resources Code, a State policy of noninterference with the free expression or exercise of Native American religion was articulated along with a prohibition of severe or irreparable damage to Native American sanctified cemeteries, places of worship, religious or ceremonial sites or sacred shrines located on public property. Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code specifies a protocol to be followed when the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a County Coroner. Section 5097.5 defines the unauthorized disturbance or removal of archaeological, historic, or paleontological resources located on public lands as a misdemeanor.
California Senate Bill 18—Protection of Tribal Cultural Places California Senate Bill (SB) 18 (California Government Code § 65352.3) incorporates the protection of California traditional tribal cultural places into land use planning for cities, counties, and agencies by establishing responsibilities for local governments to contact, refer plans to, and consult with California Native American Tribes as part of the adoption or amendment of any general or specific plan proposed on or after March 1, 2005. SB 18 requires public notice to be sent to Tribes listed on the NAHC SB 18 Tribal Consultation list within the geographical areas affected by the proposed changes. Tribes must respond to a local government notice within 90 days (unless a shorter time frame has been agreed upon by the Tribe), indicating whether or not they want to consult with the local government. Consultations are for the purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts to places, features, and objects described in Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 of the Public Resources Code that may be affected by the proposed adoption or amendment to a general or specific plan.
California Assembly Bill 52—Effects on Tribal Cultural Resources California AB 52 was signed into law on September 25, 2014, and provides that any public or private “project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” TCRs include “[s]ites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe that are eligible for inclusion in the CRHR or included in a local register of historical resources.” Under prior law, TCRs were typically addressed under the umbrella of “cultural resources,” as discussed above. AB 52 formally added the category of “tribal cultural resources” to CEQA and extends the consultation and confidentiality requirements to all projects as provided for under CEQA, rather than just projects subject to SB 18 as previously discussed.
The parties must consult in good faith, and consultation is deemed concluded when either: (1) the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect on a TCR (if such a significant effect exists); or (2) when a party concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached. Mitigation measures agreed upon during consultation must be recommended for inclusion in the 2579
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-14
environmental document. AB 52 also identifies mitigation measures that may be considered to avoid significant impacts if there is no agreement on appropriate mitigation. Recommended measures include:
• Preservation in place.
• Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource. • Protecting the traditional use of the resource.
• Protecting the confidentiality of the resource.
• Permanent conservation easements with culturally appropriate management criteria.
California Public Resources Code Section 21074—Effects on Tribal Cultural Resources AB 52 amended the CEQA statute to identify an additional category of resource to be considered under CEQA called “tribal cultural resources.” It added Public Resources Code Section 21074, which defines “tribal cultural resources” as follows:
(a) “Tribal cultural resources” are either of the following:
(1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe that are either of the following:
A) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR.
B) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.
(2) 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 Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe.
(b) A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a tribal cultural resource to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape.
(c) A historical resource described in Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 21083.2, or a “nonunique archaeological resource” as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 21083.2 may also be a tribal cultural resource if it conforms with the criteria of subdivision (a).
City of Visalia General Plan
Historic Preservation
Objectives
H-O-1 Assure the recognition of the City’s history through the preservation of historic sites, structures and featuring zoning overlay designation and review procedures for the Historic District.
2580
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5-15
H-O-2 Maintain historic residential areas as healthy, cohesive neighborhood units, and assure consistency of appearance within the historic area through conservation plans and historic preservation guidelines.
H-O-3 Support efforts to use the Local Register of Historic Structures and the Historic District to identify and promote community history through the use of walking tours and other public outreach.
H-O-4 Promote the maintenance and identification of historic resources in the community as key components of tourism and increased economic diversity for the City.
H-O-5 Promote the benefits of historic property ownership through programs such as tax incentives, available grants and loans, including but not limited to Federal Tax credits and similar programs for properties within the Historic District or on the Local Register of Historic Structures.
Policies
H-P-1 Pursue becoming a Certified Local Government in order to take advantage of grants, loans and other historic preservation programs. Under the National Historic Preservation Act, the Certified Local Government Program would allow Visalia to integrate its historic preservation efforts with those of the statewide historic preservation process and to be eligible, on a competitive basis, for special matching grants.
H-P-2 Update the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance to include criteria for streamlining the process for issuing building permits for minor repairs and alterations as designated by the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee. Include, as appropriate, preservation incentives, such as use of the California Historic Building Code, where appropriate, and other available incentives.
H-P-3 Expand the Historic Planned Office Conversion zone to preserve historically significant structures and facilitate office conversion in locations suited to commercial use and where a functional connection can be made between Downtown and adjacent neighborhoods with minimal parking impacts to the adjacent non-converted properties.
H-P-4 Continue to ensure that proposed new development within any Historic District or on any properties listed on the Local Register of Historic Structures is compatible with its surroundings, using criteria of height and scale; spacing of buildings; materials and textures; street walls; landscaping; and other elements which contribute to the historical neighborhood character.
H-P-5 Continue to facilitate the conversion of older structures to new uses, with minimal alterations to building or site appearance, by providing exceptions to zoning and building code requirements for structures on the Local Register of Historic Structures 2581
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-16
and within the Historic District, where such exceptions shall contribute to and enhance the historic character of the area.
H-P-6 Use any available funding sources to provide low-interest loans for the rehabilitation and restoration of structures listed on the Local Register of Historic Structures or located within the Historic District.
H-P-7 Continue to use the Historic Preservation Ordinance development review process to protect structures listed on the Local Register of Historic Structures or located within the Historic District.
H-P-8 Support the work of the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee, whose responsibilities include:
• Offering assistance in the form of information and referral to applicants who are developing restoration projects, and providing information on available grants and loans for restoration and rehabilitation of historic structures. • Identifying and recognizing all historic areas, sites, structures, and features by placing them on the local register and providing technical assistance with registration in the National Register of Historic Places and inclusion in the California Inventory of Historic Resources.
• Initiating efforts to educate the public to the significance of historic areas, sites and structures and the cultural and social events associated with them. • Facilitate the recognition of all structures, sites and features within the Historic District or on the Local Register of Historic Structures, along with significant historical landmarks or areas which are not contained within a District or Register where significant community history is represented. The owners of historic property shall be encouraged to display their plaques for public information. • Pursuing support of the creation of a revolving loan fund for historic rehabilitation to be financed through public and private contributions with efforts to encourage banks to provide loans for the acquisition or rehabilitation of historic properties.
H-P-9 Periodically survey historic resources and nominate historically and/or architecturally significant sites, structures, and neighborhoods to the Local Register of Historic Structures and/or Historic District, State of California Inventory of Historic Resources, National Register of Historic Places to ensure they are protected.
H-P-10 Regularly review the Local Register of Historic Structures to ensure that properties are appropriately listed.
H-P-11 Collaborate with Tulare County Historical Society and other civic organizations on appropriate monuments which publicize historic sites.
H-P-12 Establish criteria for historic street sign name blades in Historic Districts and at Gateways to historic areas.
2582
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5-17
H-P-13 Identify, survey and establish new additions to the Historic District and Local Register of Historic Structures.
H-P-14 As needed, but no less than every 10 years, review and update the Historic Element and related implementing ordinances.
• The City’s last comprehensive survey was completed for the 1979 Historic Preservation Ordinance. Many properties may be considered of historic value that were not reviewed at that time.
Cultural Resources
Objectives
OSC-O-11 Preserve and protect historic features and archaeological resources of the Visalia planning area including its agricultural surrounding for aesthetic, scientific, educational and cultural values.
Policies
OSC-P-39 Establish requirements to avoid potential impacts to sites suspected of being archaeologically, paleontologically, or historically significant or of concern, by:
• Requiring a records review for development proposed in areas that are considered archaeologically or paleontologically sensitive;
• Determining the potential effects of development and construction on archaeological or paleontological resources (as required by CEQA); • Requiring pre-construction surveys and monitoring during any ground disturbance for all development in areas of historical and archaeological sensitivity; and • Implementing appropriate measures to avoid the identified impacts, as conditions of project approval.
3.5.5 - Approach to Analysis
This evaluation focuses on whether implementation of the proposed project would have potentially significant impacts on historic resources, architectural resources, archaeological resources, human remains, or TCRs.
A project could have a significant impact on a historical resource if construction of the project would significantly impair a resource’s eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR; thus, this information has been taken into account, as appropriate, as part of the methodology used in this evaluation. Analysis is based, in part, on information collected from record searches at the SSJVIC, additional archival research, pedestrian surveys, and information from the historic architectural assessment of existing properties more than 45 years in age (if any) located within the project site boundaries. If a project would leave an identified cultural resource no longer able to convey its significance, meaning that the resource would no longer be eligible for listing in the CRHR, then the proposed project’s impact would be considered a significant adverse change. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section15126.4(b)(1), if a project adheres to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and 2583
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-18
Reconstructing Historic Buildings, then the project’s impact “shall generally be considered mitigated below a level of significance and thus is not significant.” A project may have an impact on an archaeological resource or human remains if construction of the project would physically damage or destroy archaeological data or human remains (including those interred outside of formal cemeteries). Analysis is based, in part, on information collected from record searches at the SSJVIC, the additional archival research, and pedestrian surveys.
Both direct and indirect effects of project implementation were considered for this analysis. Direct impacts are typically associated with construction and/or ground-disturbing activities, and have the potential to immediately alter, diminish, or destroy all or part of the character and quality of archaeological resources and/or historic architecture, human remains, or eligible TCRs. Indirect impacts are typically associated with post-project implementation conditions that have the potential to alter or diminish the historical setting of a cultural resource (generally historic architecture) by introducing visual intrusions on existing historical structures that are considered undesirable.
3.5.6 - Thresholds of Significance
According to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist, to determine whether the proposed project’s impacts to cultural resources or TCRs are significant environmental impacts, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated. Would the proposed project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as pursuant to Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? d) 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 a 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?
3.5.7 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the proposed project and provides feasible mitigation measures where appropriate. 2584
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5-19
Historic Resources
Impact CUL-1: Would the proposed project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? Impact Analysis
Construction
As detailed above, historic resources in this context refer to the built environment, mainly buildings and structures over 45 years in age that may be eligible for inclusion on the CRHR or NRHP. Records search results conducted at the SSJVIC identified one historic resource (P-54-003602) located within the 0.5-mile records search radius. This recorded historic era resource was evaluated in 2000 by Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. and does not meet the criteria for listing in the CRHR or the NRHP, nor is it located on-site, and it would remain unaffected by the proposed project. Additionally, no historic resources were encountered during the pedestrian field survey. Thus, because there are no historic resources on-site or in close proximity, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of any such known resources.
However, while unlikely, subsurface construction activities always have the potential to damage or destroy previously undiscovered historic resources such as wood, stone, foundations, and other structural remains; debris-filled wells or privies; and deposits of wood, glass, ceramic, and other refuse, if encountered. This would represent a potentially significant impact related to historic resources.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) CUL-1 would require an inspection monitoring by a qualified Archaeologist and a Native American Monitor during initial ground disturbance but before digging and trenching, when any historic or cultural resources would be visible. This would reduce potential impacts to historic resources that may be discovered during project construction. If a potential resource is identified, construction would be required to stop in the area of the finding(s) until appropriate identification and treatment measures are implemented. This measure would be consistent with the City’s standard conditions of approval that require monitoring of construction sites in proximity to known resources. Therefore, direct and indirect impacts related to historic resources would be less than significant with mitigation.
Operation
Impacts related to a project’s potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource are limited to inadvertent discoveries. No respective operational impacts would occur.
Because of the foregoing, the proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact on any known historic era built environment resources but could have a significant adverse impact on any previously undiscovered historic resources.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
2585
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-20
Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1 Archaeological Spot-Monitoring and Halt of Construction Upon Encountering Historical or Archaeological Materials
Prior to any ground disturbance in connection with project development, a surface inspection of the relevant portion(s) of the project site shall be conducted by a qualified Archaeologist; a Tribal Monitor/Cultural Staff from a culturally affiliated Native American Tribe identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be permitted to observe, subject to an executed agreement between the Tribe and the relevant applicant (as noted below). The Archaeologist (and Tribal Monitor/Cultural Staff, subject to an executed agreement with the relevant applicant) shall monitor the relevant portion(s) of the project site during initial ground disturbance activities that occur in connection with the subject proposal.
The relevant applicant shall offer, in good faith and based on commercially reasonable terms, a culturally affiliated Native American Tribe identified by the NAHC the opportunity to provide a Native American Monitor during grounddisturbing activities that occur in connection with the subject proposal. Tribal participation would be dependent upon the availability and interest of the Tribe as well as the parties being able to reach mutually acceptable terms.
In addition, the relevant applicant shall with diligence and good faith coordinate with the Tribal Monitor/Cultural Staff to enter into an agreement on commercially reasonable terms wherein the Tribal Monitor/Cultural Staff shall provide preproject-related activities training to supervisory personnel and any excavation contractor, which shall include information on potential cultural material finds and on the procedures to be enacted if Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) are found.
Subject to such an executed agreement, the Tribal Monitor/Cultural Staff shall provide the foregoing activities prior to any ground disturbance in connection with an individual specific development proposal.
In the event that TCRs are discovered during project-related subsurface construction activities, operations shall stop within 100 feet of the find and a qualified Archaeologist shall determine whether the resource requires further study. In consultation with the City of Visalia and consulting Tribes, the qualified Archaeologist shall determine the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including, but not limited to, excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
Measures may include avoidance, preservation in place, recordation, additional archaeological resting, and data recovery, among other options. Any previously undiscovered resources found during project-related subsurface construction activities shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance. No further ground disturbance shall occur in the immediate vicinity of the discovery until approved by the qualified Archaeologist.
2586
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5-21
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
Archaeological Resources
Impact CUL-2: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? Impact Analysis
Construction
Records search results from the SSJVIC did not identify any prehistoric archaeological resources located within the project site or within the 0.5-mile search radius. Additionally, the Sacred Lands File search conducted by the NAHC were negative for TCRs within the project site as well as within the 0.5-mile search radius. In addition, no archaeological resources were encountered during the pedestrian field survey. However, the project site is situated on Holocene Great Valley fan deposits that have a moderate potential to contain archaeological deposits that could be encountered during project construction. Such resources could consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, wood, or shell artifacts or features, including hearths and structural elements. This represents a potentially significant impact related to archaeological resources.
Operation impacts related to a project’s potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource are limited to construction impacts. No respective direct or indirect operational impacts related to archaeological resource would occur.
Implementation of MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-3 would reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources that may be discovered during project construction.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Implement MM CUL-1.
MM CUL-2 Prior to the initiation of ground disturbance activities for project development, the relevant developer shall ensure that all construction personnel conducting ground disturbance at the project site in connection with the subject individual specific development proposal shall be provided a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) cultural resources “tailgate” training. The training shall include visual aids, a discussion of applicable laws and statutes relating to archaeological resources, types of resources that may be found within the project site, and procedures to be followed in the event such resources are encountered. The training shall be conducted by an Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology. Any Native American Monitors or representatives consulting on the proposed project shall be invited to attend and participate in the training session.
2587
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-22
MM CUL-3 In the event that prehistoric or historic-period archaeological resources are encountered during construction in connection with an individual specific development proposal, all construction activities associated therewith within 100 feet of the find shall halt and the City of Visalia and an Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology shall be notified by the relevant applicant. Prehistoric archaeological materials may include obsidian and chert flaked stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, hand stones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-period materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse.
The Archaeologist shall inspect the findings within 24 hours of discovery or as soon thereafter as is reasonable and commercially practicable. If it is determined that the construction associated with the subject individual specific development proposal could significantly damage a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource (as defined pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines), mitigation shall be implemented in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 and Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, with a preference for preservation in place. If avoidance is not feasible, a qualified Archaeologist shall prepare and the relevant applicant shall implement a detailed treatment plan in consultation with the City of Visalia.
Treatment of unique archaeological resources shall follow the applicable requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. Treatment for most resources would consist of (but would not be limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the aim to target the recovery of important scientific data contained in the portion(s) of the significant resource to be impacted by the proposed project. The treatment plan shall include provisions for analysis of data in a regional context, reporting of results within a timely manner, curation of artifacts and data at an approved facility, and dissemination of reports to local and State repositories, libraries, and interested professionals.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
Human Remains
Impact CUL-3: Would the project disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
2588
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5-23
Impact Analysis
Construction
The potential for human remains to be discovered during ground-disturbing activities is considered low because no formal cemeteries or areas containing human remains are known to be present onsite or within a 0.5-mile radius. However, while it is unlikely that the presence of human remains exists within or near the project site, there is always the possibility that construction-related subsurface ground disturbance (such as grading or trenching) could potentially damage or destroy previously undiscovered human remains. In the unlikely event such an accidental discovery is made during ground disturbance activities in connection with an individual specific development proposal, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98 must be followed by the relevant applicant. Along with compliance with these statutes and regulations, implementation of MM CUL-4, which details inadvertent discovery procedures, would reduce potential impacts to previously undiscovered human remains to a less than significant level.
Operation
Impacts related to a proposed project’s potential to disturb human remains are limited to construction impacts. No respective operational impacts would occur.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-4 In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains during ground disturbance activities in connection with an individual specific development proposal, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98 shall be followed by the relevant applicant. Specifically, the following steps shall be taken:
1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance within 100 feet of the remains until the County Coroner is contacted to determine whether the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) of the deceased Native American. The MLD may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work within 48 hours, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resource Code Section 5097.98.
2. Where any of the following conditions occur, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity, either in accordance with the recommendations of the MLD or on the project site in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
2589
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-24
• The NAHC is unable to identify an MLD.
• The identified MLD fails to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission.
• The landowner or his or her authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the identified MLD and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
Additionally, California Public Resources Code Section 15064.5 requires the following relative to Native American remains:
• When an initial study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood of, Native American remains within a project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Each relevant applicant in connection with its individual specific development proposal may develop a plan for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
Listed or Eligible Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-4: 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 listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? Impact Analysis
See Section 3.5.30, Methodology, and Impact CUL-1 and CUL-2. Based on the foregoing and as described above, there are no known TCRs on-site or in the project vicinity. However, there is always the possibility that previously unknown TCRs could be damaged or destroyed as a result of subsurface construction activities. Therefore, implementation of MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-4 would reduce potential impacts to TCRs to a less than significant level.
Operation
Impacts related to a proposed project’s potential to damage or destroy TCRs are limited to construction impacts. No respective operational impacts would occur.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
2590
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5-25
Mitigation Measures
Implement MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-4.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
Lead Agency Determined Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-5: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is a 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? Impact Analysis
See Impacts CUL-1 through CUL-4.
On September 13, 2022, and pursuant to AB 52, the City sent notification letters to Tribal Representatives on the consultation list provided by the NAHC. The City conducted follow-up phone calls on October 12, 2022. No replies were recievd within the 30-day consultion period. The City, in its capacity as lead agency, has not identified any TCRs within the project site that are significant pursuant to the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.
However, the possibility remains that TCRs in the form of subsurface archaeological resources or human remains may be encountered during project construction. Implementation of MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-4 would reduce impacts to TCRs to a less than siginificant level.
Operation
Impacts related to a proposed project’s potential to damage or destroy TCRs are limited to construction impacts. No respective operational impacts would occur.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Implement MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-4.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
3.5.8 - Cumulative Impacts
The geographic scope for the cumulative analysis is described further below for each type of resource. This analysis evaluates whether the impacts of the proposed project, together with the impacts of other cumulative development, could result in a cumulatively significant impact related to historical, archaeological, and/or TCRs. This analysis then considers whether the incremental 2591
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-26
contribution of the impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project would be significant. Both conditions must apply for the proposed project’s cumulative effects to rise to the level of significance.
Historic Resources
The relevant geographic scope for potential cumulative impacts to historic, built environment resources is the land within the City’s municipal boundaries. This is because the City provides the smallest geographic boundary of potential significance when a historic property is evaluated at the local, State, or federal level. The cumulative setting includes existing agricultural and industrial uses.
No historic resources eligible for the CRHR were identified in the records search, literature review, or pedestrian survey of the project site. One historic era resource (Modoc Ditch) was identified within the project vicinity; however, the resource was evaluated and found to be ineligible for the CRHR and would remain unaffected by the proposed project. As a result, any potential impacts to the historic resource would be less than significant. With respect to the cumulative projects, these cumulative projects have the potential to result in impacts to historic resources. However, potential cumulative impacts would be mitigated at an individual project level by adherence to applicable current State and federal laws and regulations, as well as other City and County laws, regulations, and mitigations, such as adherence to standard conditions of approval that require monitoring of construction sites in proximity to known resources (similar to as MM CUL-1, e.g.). The combination of these efforts would reduce potential cumulative impacts related to historical resources to a less than significant level.
Moreover, the proposed project would not have a considerably cumulative contribution to this already less than significant impact because there are no known historic resources that would be adversely impacted by the proposed project.
Based on the foregoing, with implementation of MM CUL-1, the proposed project would not have a significant cumulative impact on any historic resources.
Archaeological Resources
The geographic scope of the cumulative archaeological resources analysis is the project vicinity. This is because archaeological resource impacts tend to be localized because the integrity of any given resource depends on what occurs in the immediate vicinity around that resource, such as disruption of soils, and the immediate vicinity provides the smallest geographic unit within which significant cumulative impacts spanning multiple projects may occur. Therefore, in addition to the project site itself, the area near the project site would be the area most affected by project activities (generally within a 0.5-mile radius). For the purposes of this analysis, the geographic scope is defined as the
0.5-mile SSJVIC records search radius. As discussed above, the geographic scope for this cumulative setting includes existing agricultural and industrial uses. All cumulative projects shown on Exhibit 3- 1, Cumulative Project Map, are within the 0.5-mile geographic scope. As noted above, there are three area-specific survey reports (Table 3.5-2) on file with the SSJVIC for the project site and its 0.5- mile search radius. No reports address the project site specifically, indicating that it has not previously been surveyed for cultural resources. There are no known unique archaeological resources within this geographic scope; however, there is always the possibility of previously unknown archaeological resources that could be damaged or destroyed during subsurface construction activities associated with cumulative projects. Nevertheless, any such potential 2592
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5-27
cumulative impacts would be mitigated at an individual project level by adherence to applicable local, State and federal laws and regulations, as well as City and County laws, regulations, and mitigations as discussed in Section 3.5.4, such as adherence to standard conditions of approval that require monitoring of construction sites in proximity to known resources. Accordingly, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
For the reasons noted above, the proposed project would not have a direct impact on any known archaeological resources, and potentially significant impacts to any previously unknown resources that could be damaged or destroyed during project construction would be mitigated to less than significant by adherence to applicable laws and regulations and compliance with the identified mitigation measures (MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-4), which requires monitoring of initial ground disturbance by a qualified Archaeologist and Native American Monitor, a WEAP training for construction staff, inadvertent discovery procedures, and an updated site survey following clearing and grubbing. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution on this already less than significant cumulative archaeological resources impact.
Based on the foregoing, the proposed project would not have a significant cumulative impact on any archaeological resources.
Tribal Cultural Resources
Significant impacts to TCRs may range from impacts to a resource meeting the CEQA definition of a significant historic resource to impacts to resources identified through consultation between a lead agency and Native American Tribe. As such, the scope and range of potential cumulative impacts to TCRs are highly contingent on the nature of the resource and status of consultation. In the absence of any known TCRs that would be significantly impacted by the proposed project, the appropriate geographic scope for assessing potential cumulative impacts to TCRs is the project vicinity. This is because any undiscovered TCRs would likely be archaeological in nature, and the immediate project vicinity provides the smallest geographic unit within which significant cumulative impacts spanning multiple projects may occur. Thus, for the purposes of this analysis, the immediate vicinity is defined as the 0.5-mile SSJVIC records search radius.
As discussed above, the geographic scope includes existing agricultural and industrial uses.
Additionally, all cumulative projects shown on Exhibit 3-1, Cumulative Project Map, are within the
0.5-mile geographic scope. As noted above, there are three area-specific survey reports (Table 3.5-2) on file with the SSJVIC for the project site and its 0.5-mile search radius. No reports address the project site specifically, indicating that it has not previously been surveyed for cultural resources.
There are no known TCRs or other archaeological resources within this geographic scope; however, there is always the possibility of previously unknown resources that could be damaged or destroyed during subsurface construction activities associated with cumulative projects. Nevertheless, any such potential cumulative impacts would be required to be mitigated at an individual project level through compliance with applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations governing cultural resources, such as adherence to standard conditions of approval that require monitoring of construction sites in proximity to known resources. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. As explained above, there are no known TCRs that would be impacted by the proposed project. Although subsurface construction activities associated with the proposed project 2593
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR
3.5-28
have the potential to encounter undiscovered TCRs and other archaeological resources, the proposed project would be required to mitigate for impacts through compliance with applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations governing cultural resources. Additionally, the implementation of mitigation measures MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-4, which require WEAP training for construction staff, inadvertent discovery procedures, an updated site survey, and opportunities for a culturally affiliated Tribal Monitor, would ensure that any undiscovered TCRs are not substantially adversely affected by project-related construction activities. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to this already less than significant cumulative impact.
Level of Cumulative Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-4.
Level of Cumulative Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. 2594
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Energy
3.6-1
3.6 - Energy
3.6.1 - Introduction
This section describes the existing energy setting in the project area as well as the relevant regulatory framework. This section also evaluates the possible impacts related to energy that could result from implementation of the proposed project. Information in this section is based on projectspecific energy calculation outputs included in Appendix B. No public comments were received during the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) scoping period related to energy.
3.6.2 - Existing Setting
Energy Basics
Energy is generally transmitted either in the form of electricity, measured in kilowatts (kW)1 or megawatts (MW),2 or natural gas measured in British Thermal Units (BTU), or cubic feet.3 Fuel, such as gasoline or diesel, is measured in gallons or liters.
Electricity
Electricity is used primarily for lighting, appliances, and other uses associated with the proposed project.
Natural Gas
Natural gas is used primarily for heating, water heating, and cooking purpose and is typically associated with commercial and residential uses.
Fuel
Fuel is used primarily for powering off-road equipment, trucks, and passenger vehicles. The typical fuel types used are diesel and gasoline.
Electricity Generation, Distribution, and Use
State of California
The State of California generates approximately 277,764 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity, in 2021, which is the most recent year of reporting information available. Approximately 50.2 percent of the energy generation is sourced from natural gas, 34.8 percent from renewable sources (i.e., solar, wind, and geothermal), 6.2 percent from large hydroelectric sources, and the remaining 8.8 percent is sourced from coal, nuclear, oil, and other nonrenewable sources.4 1 1 kW = 1.000 watts; A watt is a derived unit of power that measure rate of energy conversion. 1 watt is equivalent to work being done at a rate of 1 joule of energy per second. In electrical terms, 1 watt is the power dissipated by a current of 1 ampere flowing across a resistance of 1 volt. 2 1 MW = 1 million watts 3 A unit for quantity of heat that equals 100,000 British thermal units. A British thermal unit is the quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 pound of liquid water 1 degree Fahrenheit at a constant pressure of 1 atmosphere. 4 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2021. Website: https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricitydata/2021-total-system-electric-generation. Accessed June 1, 2023. 2595
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Energy Draft EIR
3.6-2
In 2022, California ranked third in the nation in conventional hydroelectric generation and fourth in net electricity generation from all other renewable energy resources combined. In addition, in 2022 renewable resources accounted for 49 percent of California in-state electricity generation.
Electricity and natural gas is distributed through the various electric load-serving entities (LSEs) in California. These entities include investor-owned utilities (IOUs), publicly owned LSEs, rural electric cooperatives, community choice aggregators, and electric service providers.5 Project Site
The project site currently does not use natural gas as no habitable structures exist on-site that would use natural gas. Existing agricultural activity could use electricity and/or diesel fuel to power vehicles and water pumps.
Natural Gas Generation, Distribution, and Use
State of California
Natural gas is used for everything from generating electricity to cooking and space heating to an alternative transportation fuel. In 2021, total natural gas consumption in California was 2,172.8 Trillion BTUs. Natural gas-fired generation has become a major source of electricity in California, as it fuels about 42 percent of electricity consumption in the State in 2022 followed by renewable sources. Because natural gas is a resource that provides load when the availability of hydroelectric power generation and/or other sources decrease, use varies greatly from year to year. The availability of hydroelectric resources, the emergence of renewable resources for electricity generation, and overall consumer demand are the variables that shape natural gas use in electric generation.6
Fuel Use
State of California
The main category of fuel use in California is transportation fuel, specifically gasoline and diesel.
Gasoline is the most used transportation fuel in California, with 97 percent of all gasoline sold in California being consumed by light-duty cars, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles. Diesel is the second largest transportation fuel used in California. Nearly all heavy-duty trucks, delivery vehicles, buses, trains, ships, boats and barges, farm, construction and heavy-duty military vehicles and equipment have diesel engines. In year 2021, it was estimated that 11,618 million gallons of gasoline and 1,611 million gallons of diesel were sold in California.7 Project Site
Existing agricultural activity on the project site would consume gasoline and diesel fuel to power vehicles and water pumps.
5 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2019. Electric Load-Serving Entities (LSEs) in California Website:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/utilities.html. Accessed June 1, 2023. 6 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2019. Supply and Demand of Natural Gas in California. Website:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/californias-natural-gas-market. Accessed June 1, 2023. 7 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2020. A15 Report Responses vs. California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. Website:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/transportation-energy/california-retail-fuel-outlet-annualreporting#notes. Accessed June 1, 2023. 2596
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Energy
3.6-3
3.6.3 - Regulatory Framework
Federal
Energy Independence and Security Act
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 created the Renewable Fuel Standard Program. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 expanded this program by:
• Expanding the Renewable Fuel Standard Program to include diesel in addition to gasoline. • Increasing the volume of renewable fuel required to be blended into transportation fuel from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022. • Establishing new categories of renewable fuel, and setting separate volume requirements for each one.
• Requiring the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to apply life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions performance threshold standards to ensure that each category of renewable fuel emits fewer GHGs than the petroleum fuel it replaces.
This expanded Renewable Fuel Standard Program lays the foundation for achieving substantial reductions of GHG emissions from the use of renewable fuels, reducing the use of imported petroleum, and encouraging the development and expansion of the nation’s renewable fuels sector.
Signed on December 19, 2007, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) aims to:
• Move the United States toward greater energy independence and security. • Increase the production of clean renewable fuels.
• Protect consumers.
• Increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles. • Promote research on and deploy GHG capture and storage options. • Improve the energy performance of the federal government. • Increase U.S. energy security, develop renewable fuel production, and improve vehicle fuel economy.
EISA reinforces the energy reduction goals for federal agencies put forth in Executive Order 13423, as well as introduces more aggressive requirements. The three key provisions enacted are the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, the Renewable Fuel Standard Program, and the appliance/lighting efficiency standards.
The EPA is committed to developing, implementing, and revising both regulations and voluntary programs under the following subtitles in EISA, among others:
• Increased Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards
• Federal Vehicle Fleets
• Renewable Fuel Standard
• Biofuels Infrastructure
2597
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Energy Draft EIR
3.6-4
• Carbon Capture and Sequestration8
EPA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Light-duty Vehicle GHG Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards Final Rule Congress first passed the Corporate Average Fuel Economy law in 1975 to increase the fuel economy of cars and light-duty trucks. The law has become more stringent over time. On May 19, 2009, former President Barack Obama put in motion a new national policy to increase fuel economy for all new cars and trucks sold in the United States. On April 1, 2010, the EPA and the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced a joint final rule establishing a national program that would reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel economy for new cars and trucks sold in the United States.
The first phase of the national program would apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. They require these vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of CO2 per mile, equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon if the automobile industry were to meet this CO2 level solely through fuel economy improvements. Together, these standards would cut CO2 emissions by an estimated 960 million metric tons and 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program (model years 2012-2016).
The EPA and the NHTSA issued final rules on a second phase joint rulemaking, establishing national standards for light-duty vehicles for model years 2017 through 2025 in August 2012.9 The new standards for model years 2017 through 2025 apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles. The final standards are projected to result in an average industry fleet wide level of 163 grams/mile of CO2 in model year 2025, which is equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) if achieved exclusively through fuel economy improvements.
The EPA and NHTSA issued final rules for the first national standards to reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel efficiency of heavy-duty trucks and buses on September 15, 2011, which became effective November 14, 2011. For combination tractors, the agencies are proposing engine and vehicle standards that began in the 2014 model year and achieve up to a 20 percent reduction in CO2 emissions and fuel consumption by the 2018 model year. For heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, the agencies are proposing separate gasoline and diesel truck standards, which phase in starting in the 2014 model year and achieve up to a 10 percent reduction for gasoline vehicles, and a 15 percent reduction for diesel vehicles by 2018 model year (12 and 17 percent respectively if accounting for air conditioning leakage). Lastly, for vocational vehicles, the engine and vehicle standards would achieve up to a 10 percent reduction in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions from the 2014 to 2018 model years.
The State of California has received a waiver from the EPA to have separate, stricter Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards. Although global climate change did not become an international 8 United States Environment Protection Agency (EPA). Summary of the Energy Independence and Security Act. Website:
https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-energy-independence-and-security-act. Accessed June 1, 2023. 9 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012. EPA and NHTSA Set Standards to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Improve Fuel Economy for Model Years 2017-2025 Cars and Light Trucks. Website: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420f12051.pdf.
Accessed June 1, 2023.
2598
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Energy
3.6-5
concern until the 1980s, efforts to reduce energy consumption began in California in response to the oil crisis in the 1970s, resulting in the incidental reduction of GHG emissions. In order to manage the State’s energy needs and promote energy efficiency, Assembly Bill (AB) 1575 created the California Energy Commission (CEC) in 1975.
California Assembly Bill 1493: Pavley Regulations and Fuel Efficiency Standards California AB 1493, enacted on July 22, 2002, required the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks. Implementation of the regulation was delayed by lawsuits filed by automakers and by the EPA’s denial of an implementation waiver. The EPA subsequently granted the requested waiver in 2009, which was upheld by the by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2011.10 The standards are to be phased in during the 2009 through 2016 model years. When fully phased in, the near-term (2009–2012) standards will result in an approximately 22 percent reduction compared with the 2002 fleet, and the mid-term (2013–2016) standards will result in about a 30 percent reduction.
The second phase of the implementation for the Pavley Bill was incorporated into Amendments to the Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) Program referred to as LEV III or the Advanced Clean Cars program.
The Advanced Clean Car program combines the control of smog-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package of requirements for model years 2017 through 2025.
The regulation will reduce GHGs from new cars by 34 percent from 2016 levels by 2025. The new rules will reduce pollutants from gasoline and diesel-powered cars, and deliver increasing numbers of zero-emission technologies, such as full battery electric cars, newly emerging plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cell cars.
California Code of Regulations Title 13: Motor Vehicles California Code of Regulations, Title 13: Division 3, Chapter 10, Article 1, Section 2485: Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling.11 This measure seeks to reduce public exposure to diesel particulate matter and other air contaminants by establishing idling restrictions, emission standards, and other requirements for heavy-duty diesel engines and alternative idle reduction technologies to limit the idling of diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles.
Any person that owns, operates, or causes to operate any diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicle must not allow a vehicle to idle for more than 5 consecutive minutes at any location, or operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system for greater than 5 minutes at any location when within 100 feet of a restricted area.
California Code of Regulations, Title 13: Division 3, Chapter 9, Article 4.8, Section 2449: General Requirements for In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets. This measure regulates oxides of nitrogen (NOX), diesel particulate matter (DPM), and other criteria pollutant emissions from in-use off-road 10 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2013. Clean Car Standards—Pavley, Assembly Bill 1493. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/californias-greenhouse-gas-vehicle-emission-standards-under-assembly-bill-1493-2002-pavley. Accessed June 1, 2023. 11 Thomas Reuters Westlaw. 2019. California Code of Regulations, Title 13. Motor Vehicles. Website:
https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Browse/Home/California/CaliforniaCodeofRegulations?guid=I143B9530D46811DE8879F88E8B0D AAAE&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default). Accessed June 1, 2023. 2599
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Energy Draft EIR
3.6-6
diesel-fueled vehicles. This measure also requires each fleet to meet fleet average requirements or demonstrate that it has met “best available control technology” requirements. Additionally, this measure requires medium and large fleets to have a written idling policy that is made available to operators of the vehicles informing them that idling is limited to 5 consecutive minutes or less.
California Senate Bill 1078: Renewable Electricity Standards On September 12, 2002, former Governor Gray Davis signed Senate Bill (SB) 1078, requiring California to generate 20 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2017. SB 107 changed the due date to 2010 instead of 2017. On November 17, 2008, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-14-08, which established a Renewable Portfolio Standard target for California requiring that all retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020. Former Governor Schwarzenegger also directed the ARB (Executive Order S-21-09) to adopt a regulation by July 31, 2010, requiring the State’s LSEs to meet a 33 percent renewable energy target by 2020. The ARB Board approved the Renewable Electricity Standard on September 23, 2010 by Resolution 10-23.
California SB 350: Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act In 2015, the State legislature approved and the Governor signed SB 350 which reaffirms California’s commitment to reducing its GHG emissions and addressing climate change. Key provisions include an increase in the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS), higher energy efficiency requirements for buildings, initial strategies toward a regional electricity grid, and improved infrastructure for electric vehicle charging stations. Provisions for a 50 percent reduction in the use of petroleum Statewide were removed from the Bill due to opposition and concern that it would prevent the Bill’s passage.
Specifically, SB 350 requires the following to reduce Statewide GHG emissions:
• Increase the amount of electricity procured from renewable energy sources from 33 percent to 50 percent by 2030, with interim targets of 40 percent by 2024, and 25 percent by 2027. • Double the energy efficiency in existing buildings by 2030. This target will be achieved through the California Public Utility Commission, the CEC, and local publicly owned utilities. • Reorganize the Independent System Operator (ISO) to develop more regional electrify transmission markets and to improve accessibility in these markets, which will facilitate the growth of renewable energy markets in the western United States.12 California Code of Regulations Title 24
Part 6 (Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings) California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 6 (California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings) was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficient technologies and methods. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions. The 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards went into 12 California Legislative Information (California Leginfo). 2015. Senate Bill 350 Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015. Website:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB350. Accessed June 1, 2023. 2600
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Energy
3.6-7
effect on January 1, 2017.13 The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2020.
Part 11 (California Green Building Standards Code)
California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11, is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all residential, commercial, and school buildings that went in effect January 1, 2011. The Code is updated on a regular basis, with the most recent update consisting of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) that became effective January 1, 2023. 14 Local jurisdictions are
permitted to adopt more stringent requirements, as State law provides methods for local enhancements. CALGreen recognizes that many jurisdictions have developed existing construction and demolition ordinances, and defers to them as the ruling guidance provided they provide a minimum 50 percent diversion requirement. CALGreen also provides exemptions for areas not served by construction and demolition recycling infrastructure. The California Building Standards Code (CBC) provides the minimum standard that buildings need to meet in order to be certified for occupancy, which is generally enforced by the local building official.
California Public Utilities Code
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulates privately owned telecommunication, electric, natural gas, water, railroad, rail transit, and passenger transportation companies. It is the responsibility of the CPUC to (1) assure California utility customers safe, reliable utility service at reasonable rates; (2) protect utility customers from fraud; and (3) promote a healthy California economy. The Public Utilities Code, adopted by the legislature, defines the jurisdiction of the CPUC.
Local
City of Visalia General Plan
The City of Visalia General Plan does not include goals or policies that explicitly aim to improve energy efficiency or reduce energy consumption.15 However, some policies would indirectly improve energy efficiency.
AQ-P-9 Continue to mitigate short-term construction impacts and long-term stationary source impacts on air quality on a case-by-case basis and continue to assess air quality impacts through environmental review. Require developers to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce air pollutant emissions associated with the construction and operation of development projects.
BMPs include Transportation Demand Management strategies for large development projects such as:
• Providing bicycle access and parking facilities;
13 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2016. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Frequently Asked Questions. Website:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/rulemaking/documents/2016_Building_Energy_Efficiency_Standards_FAQ.pdf.
Accessed June 3, 2023. 14 California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). 2022. Green Building Standards. Website:
https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAGBC2022P1. Accessed June 3, 2023. 15 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan. Website: https://www.visalia.city/depts/community_development/planning/gp.asp. Accessed June 3, 2023.
2601
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Energy Draft EIR
3.6-8
• Providing preferential parking for high-occupancy vehicles, carpools, or alternative fuels vehicles;
• Establishing telecommuting programs or satellite work centers; • Allowing alternative work schedules;
• Subsidizing public transit costs for employee;
• Scheduling Deliveries at off-peak traffic periods; and • Providing recharge stations for plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs).
AQ-P-13 Where feasible, replace City vehicles with those that employ low emission technology.
AQ-P-14 Promote and expand the trip-reduction program for City employees to reduce air pollution and emissions of greenhouse gas. The program may include carpooling and ride sharing; reimbursement of transit costs; encouragement of flexible work schedules, telecommuting, and teleconferencing.
3.6.4 - Methodology
This analysis calculated the amount of energy consumed during both construction and operation.
Energy use consumed by the proposed project was estimated and includes natural gas, electricity, and fuel consumption for project construction and operation. Energy calculations are included as part of Appendix B.
3.6.5 - Thresholds of Significance
The lead agency utilizes the criteria in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist to determine whether impacts related to energy are significant environmental effects. Would the project:
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?
3.6.6 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the project and provides mitigation measures where appropriate.
Energy Use
Impact ENER-1: Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
2602
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Energy
3.6-9
Impact Analysis
The information provided below is derived from the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Analysis Report (Air Quality Report) prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) on May 4, 2023.
A discussion of the proposed project’s anticipated energy usage is presented below.
Construction
For purposes of a conservative analysis, the anticipated construction schedule for all three phases of development was assumed to begin in March 2024 and conclude in March 2028. It is important to note that if the construction schedule were to move to later year(s), construction energy demand would likely decrease because of improvements in technology and more stringent regulatory requirements as older, less efficient equipment is replaced by newer and cleaner equipment. Even in a scenario where all three construction phases overlap, the impacts related to energy consumption would not be materially different from the phased construction analyzed here. That is because concurrent construction would not result in an increased use of fuel and electricity beyond that needed for a phased construction. The proposed project would require demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and paving. The construction phase would require energy for the manufacture and transportation of building materials, preparation of the project site (e.g., demolition, site clearing, and grading), and the actual construction of the buildings and related on- and off-site improvements and infrastructure. Petroleum-based fuels such as diesel fuel and gasoline would be the primary sources of energy for these tasks.
The types of on-site equipment used during construction of the proposed project would include gasoline- and diesel-powered construction and transportation equipment, including trucks, bulldozers, frontend loaders, forklifts, and cranes. Construction equipment is estimated to consume a total of approximately 886,679 gallons of diesel fuel over the entire construction duration (Appendix B).
Fuel use associated with construction vehicle trips generated by the proposed project was also estimated; trips include construction worker trips, haul truck trips for material transport, and vendor trips for construction material deliveries. Fuel use from these vehicles traveling to the project site was based on (1) the projected number of trips the proposed project would generate during construction, (2) average trip distances by trip type, and (3) fuel efficiencies estimated in the ARB EMFAC mobile source emission model. The specific parameters used to estimate fuel usage are included in Appendix B. In total, the proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 17,099,450 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and a combined approximately 924,696 gallons of gasoline and diesel for vehicle travel during construction.
Other equipment would include construction lighting, field services (office trailers), and electrically driven equipment such as pumps and other tools. Chapter 8.36 of the Visalia Municipal Code defines permissible hours of construction as between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. As construction activities would be restricted to these hours, it is anticipated that the use of construction lighting would be relatively minimal. Singlewide mobile office trailers, which are commonly used in construction staging areas, generally range in size from approximately 160 square feet to 720 square feet. A typical 720-square2603 City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Energy Draft EIR
3.6-10
foot office trailer would consume approximately 6,548 kWh during the 12-month concurrent construction phase (Appendix B).
Limitations on the permissible idling time of vehicles and equipment along with requirements that equipment be properly maintained would result in fuel savings. Similarly, compliance with applicable State laws and regulations would limit idling from both on-road and off-road diesel-powered equipment and are part of a comprehensive regulatory framework that is implemented by the ARB.
Additionally, as a practical matter, it is reasonable to assume that the overall construction schedule and process would be designed and implemented to be efficient as feasible in order to avoid excess monetary costs. For example, equipment and fuel are not typically used wastefully due to the added expense associated with renting the equipment, maintaining it, and fueling it. Therefore, the opportunities for future efficiency gains during construction beyond those already built in due to commercially practicable considerations are relatively limited. For the foregoing reasons, it is anticipated that the construction phase of the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Construction-related energy impacts would be less than significant.
Operation
The proposed project would consume energy as part of building operations and transportation activities. Project energy consumption is summarized in Table 3.6-1. For further details, see Appendix B.
Table 3.6-1: Estimated Annual Project Energy Consumption Energy Consumption Activity Annual Consumption (approx.) Electricity Consumption 34,152,062 kWh/year
Natural Gas Consumption 49,385,262 kBTU/year
Total Fuel Consumption 7,576,169 gallons of gasoline and diesel Operational Fuel Consumption–Passenger Vehicles 1,237,261 gallons of gasoline and diesel Operational Fuel Consumption–Trucks 6,338,908 gallons of gasoline and diesel Notes:
kBTU = kilo-British Thermal Unit
kWh = kilowatt-hour
VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled
Source: FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) 2023. (Appendix B)
Operation of the proposed project would consume an estimated 34,152,062 kWh of electricity and an estimated 49,385,262 kBTU of natural gas on an annual basis. The proposed project’s buildings and related improvements and infrastructure would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s latest adopted energy efficiency standards, which are based on the State’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards. These standards include minimum energy efficiency requirements related to building envelope, mechanical systems (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC] and water heating systems), and indoor and outdoor lighting, are widely regarded as the some of the most advanced and stringent building energy efficiency standards in the country. Moreover, as 2604
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Energy
3.6-11
specified in Chapter 5, Part 11 of the Title 24 standards, the proposed project would be required to incorporate electrical conduit to facilitate future installation of electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure. In addition, as specified in Subchapter 6, Part 6 of the Title 24 standards, the proposed project would be required to either include rooftop solar systems or design the proposed buildings to structurally accommodate future installation of a rooftop solar system. As such, the design of the proposed project would facilitate the future commitment to renewable energy resources. Therefore, building energy consumption would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.
Project-related vehicle trips would consume an estimated 7,576,169 gallons of gasoline and diesel annually. In addition, the proposed project would include the installation of bicycle parking fixtures consistent with the City of Visalia Municipal Code requirements for new development, encouraging the use of alternative modes of transportation for worker commutes. Regional access to the project site is provided via State Route (SR) 99, which is 0.85 mile to the east of the project site. As a result, the proposed project would be located within 1 mile of a major transportation corridor that provides interstate regional access. Moreover, as discussed in Section 3.15, Transportation, the proposed project would be required to implement various Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures that would contribute to fuel savings through incentives for project staff to utilize nonmotorized transportation modes. Furthermore, the proposed project would generate vehicle trips that would travel to other cities and states in order to deliver goods and the location of the proposed project would not result in excessive or wasteful vehicle travel. Thus, transportation fuel consumption would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Impacts would be less than significant.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Standards Consistency Impact ENER-2: Would the project conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Impact Analysis
The proposed project would be served with electricity provided by Southern California Edison (SCE).
In 2021, SCE obtained 31.4 percent of its electricity from renewable energy sources (14.9 percent solar, 10.2 percent wind, 5.7 percent geothermal, 0.1 percent biomass and biowaste, and 0.5 percent eligible hydroelectric), while the remaining electricity was sourced from nuclear (9.2 percent), natural gas (22.3 percent), large hydroelectric (2.3 percent), and unspecified sources of power (34.8 percent).16 Therefore, the proposed project’s electricity provider does not meet the State’s current objective of 33 percent of electricity from renewable energy sources. However, the utility would be 16 California Energy Commission. 2021. Annual Power Content Labels for 2021. Website: https://www.sce.com/sites/default/files/customfiles/Web%20files/2021%20Power%20Content%20Label.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023. 2605
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Energy Draft EIR
3.6-12
required pursuant to applicable laws and regulations to meet the future objective of 60 percent of electricity from renewable energy sources by 2030. As noted above, the proposed project’s buildings and related improvements and infrastructure would be designed in accordance with then-current Title 24, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Nonresidential Buildings. These standards include minimum energy efficiency requirements related to building envelope, mechanical systems (e.g., HVAC and water heating systems), and indoor and outdoor lighting. Based on the foregoing, including the incorporation of the Title 24 standards into the design of the proposed project, this would ensure that the proposed project would not result in the use of energy in a wasteful manner.
The City of Visalia Climate Action Plan (CAP) and General Plan contain policies that are related to energy conservation. While several of these policies are voluntary or cannot be implemented by an individual development project, these policies would contribute toward less water demand, energy efficient operational uses, and reduce the unnecessary use of fuel. For example, the proposed project would be consistent with CAP actions related to Energy by including Mitigation Measure (MM) GHG-2a, which would require rooftop solar panel systems, solar-ready rooftop design, as feasible, or roofing material contains light coloring with a solar reflective index greater than 78. In addition, the proposed project would be consistent with other CAP actions related to reduction energy consumption such as, including drought tolerant landscaping that requires less water demand and consequently less electricity to convey that water to the project site.
Additionally, compliance with then-current Title 24 standards would ensure that the proposed project would not conflict with any of the General Plan energy conservation policies related to the proposed project’s building envelope, mechanical systems, and indoor and outdoor lighting.
The proposed project would be required to comply with applicable State energy standards and with relevant energy conservation policies contained in the Visalia General Plan. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with State or local renewable or energy efficiency objectives. Impacts would be less than significant.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
3.6.7 - Cumulative Impacts
The geographic scope of the cumulative energy analysis is the portion of SCE’s service area that covers incorporated and unincorporated Tulare County. Cumulative projects considered as part of this cumulative analysis include the project, other cumulative projects identified in Table 3-1 in Chapter 3, Environmental Impact Analysis, and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the SCE service area that covers the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Tulare County.
Electricity and Natural Gas During operation, cumulative projects would be required to comply with applicable provisions of Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen. Specifically, the 2606
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Energy
3.6-13
buildings and other improvements that would be constructed as part of the various cumulative projects would be required to be designed in accordance with Title 24, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings as applicable. These standards include minimum energy efficiency requirements related to building envelope, mechanical systems (e.g., HVAC and water heating systems), and indoor and outdoor lighting. Future cumulative development would also be required to meet even more stringent energy efficiency requirements through local and Statewide policy, such as Title 24, Part 6, which would require, for example, that newly constructed residential homes include on-site photovoltaic solar systems, with some exceptions.
Furthermore, SCE, which supplies electricity to the project site and vicinity, would be required by SB 100 to incrementally increase the proportion of renewable electricity generation supplying its instate retail sales until it reaches 100 percent carbon-free electricity generation by 2045. Electricity would also be consumed during construction of the cumulative projects from the use of construction trailers and any electrically driven equipment, vehicles, or tools. Electricity consumed during construction of the cumulative projects would also be subject to the renewable electricity generation requirements established by SB 100, as SCE would be the anticipated electricity supplier for the cumulative project areas. The incorporation of these regulations into the design of the cumulative projects would ensure that they would not result in the inefficient, unnecessary, or wasteful consumption of electricity or natural gas, and thus they would not have a significant cumulative impact.
Similarly, the proposed project’s energy use would be limited to that which is necessary for the construction and operation of the proposed project. As discussed above, the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable Statewide and local policies and standards pertaining to energy efficiency and can reasonably be assumed to pursue greater energy efficiencies to the extent commercially practicable in its operation, in the interest of reducing operating costs. As such, the proposed project’s incremental contribution to the less than significant cumulative impact would not be considerable with respect to energy consumption in the form of electricity and natural gas.
Cumulative projects would be required to comply with California Code of Regulations Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485, that limit idling from both on-road and off-road diesel-powered equipment and are enforced by the ARB. Additionally, various federal and State regulations, including the Low Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS), Pavley Clean Car Standards, and LEV Program, would serve to reduce the transportation fuel demand of cumulative projects.
Compliance with these regulations by the cumulative projects would ensure that they would not result in the inefficient, unnecessary, or wasteful consumption of fuel and their cumulative impact would be less than significant. As discussed in more detail above, the proposed project would consume vehicle fuel during both construction and operation. As previously discussed, the proposed project would also be required to use fuels which conform to various federal and State regulations, such as the LCFS, Pavley Clean Car Standards, and LEV Program. In addition, the proposed project would consume fuels in an amount necessary to construct and operate the proposed project and would not consume excessive amounts of fuel beyond what is necessary in the interest of avoiding unnecessary construction or operation costs. Therefore, the proposed project’s incremental contribution to the less than significant cumulative impact would not be considerable with respect to the wasteful or inefficient use of energy.
2607
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Energy Draft EIR
3.6-14
Level of Cumulative Significance
Less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
2608
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Geology and Soils
3.7-1
3.7 - Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
3.7.1 - Introduction
This section describes the existing geologic and soil characteristics of the project site and the potential effects from implementing the proposed project with respect to potential geology, soils, seismicity, and paleontological impacts. In addition, this section identifies feasible mitigation measures that would reduce these impacts, if and to the extent required. The descriptions and analysis in this section is based, in part, on the Geotechnical Evaluation1 and the Paleontological Records Search.
2 These reports are provided in Appendix E of this Draft EIR.
No comments were received during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment period related to geology, soils, and seismicity.
3.7.2 - Environmental Setting
Geologic Setting
City of Visalia
The City is part of the Central Valley province, one of several geomorphic provinces in California. The San Joaquin Valley is in a basin bounded by the Sierra Nevada foothills and mountains to the east and the Coast Ranges to the west, and it is filled with deep layers of sediment generally underlain by sequences of Tertiary- to Pleistocene-age marine and nonmarine sedimentary rock. The sedimentary rock is generally covered by Pleistocene to Holocene alluvium that has infilled the valley.3 The City’s topography is basically flat, lying at an elevation of approximately 330 feet above sea level. The St.
Johns River flows through the northeastern portion of the City, which, along with smaller streams and canals, forms alluvial fans.
Project Site
The project site is located in the northwestern portion of the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) and is located within the San Joaquin Valley of the Central Valley geomorphic province of California. The project site is generally flat and underlain by Holocene-age alluvial fan deposits.4 Existing Soils
City of Visalia
The City has relatively flat topography and is distant from any delineated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, as shown in Exhibit 3.7-1, Regional Earthquake Fault Map, and described further below.
Although no specific liquefaction hazard areas have been identified, the potential for liquefaction is recognized throughout the San Joaquin Valley where unconsolidated sediments and high-water tables coincide. The City’s Planning Area comprises all of the land within the City as well as neighboring unincorporated land, including the community of Goshen, and encompasses 1 Ninyo & Moore. 2022. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park. August 2. 2 Finger, Kenneth L., PhD. 2022. Paleontological Records Search for the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project (4119.0039), near the City of Visalia, Tulare County. June 20. 3
Ninyo & Moore. 2022. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park. August 2. 4 Ibid. 2609
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Geology and Soils Draft EIR
3.7-2
approximately 66,640 acres.5 Subsidence in the Planning Area from groundwater removal may also occur based on the fact that the Kaweah Subbasin underlying the Planning Area is considered to be in an overdraft on an average long-term basis.
6 Soils with moderate shrink-swell potential underlie
about 2,480 acres in the Planning Area.
7 Project Site
The Geotechnical Evaluation for the project site included the collection of site-specific data through geotechnical borings and laboratory analysis of collected soil samples. The results indicate that the project site is underlain by undocumented fill soils and alluvium. Both soil types are composed of silt, sand, and clay at depths of up to approximately 51.5 feet.
Groundwater was not encountered in the borings at the time of drilling, although groundwater levels do have seasonal variations. However, groundwater monitoring well data from the State of California Water Resources Control Board’s GeoTracker website indicate that the depth to groundwater ranges from approximately 100 to 200 feet at monitoring wells located approximately
0.5 mile south and approximately 2 miles southwest of the project site.8 Based on the available information and the nature and location of the project site, it is anticipated that similar depths to groundwater are present at the project site.
Seismicity
The term seismicity describes the effects of seismic waves that are radiated from an earthquake fault in motion. While most of the energy released during an earthquake result in the permanent displacement of the ground, as much as 10 percent of the energy may dissipate immediately in the form of seismic waves. Seismicity can result in seismic-related hazards such as fault rupture, ground shaking, and liquefaction faults form in rocks when stresses overcome the internal strength of the rock, and fault rupture occurs when movement on a fault breaks through to the surface and can result in damage to infrastructure and persons. Ground movement during an earthquake can vary depending on the overall magnitude, distance to the fault, focus of earthquake energy, and type of geologic material. The composition of underlying soils, even those relatively distant from faults, can intensify ground shaking. Strong ground shaking from an earthquake can result in damage, with buildings shifted off their foundations and underground pipes broken. Liquefaction occurs when an earthquake causes ground shaking that results in saturated soil to lose shear strength, deform, and act like a liquid. When liquefaction occurs, it can result in ground failure that can result in damage to roads, pipelines, and buildings.
City of Visalia
The State of California is one of the most seismically active areas in the United States. That said, there are no known active earthquake faults in the City’s Planning Area. The closest active faults are the Owens Valley Fault group and Sierra Nevada Fault Zone, located approximately 75 miles to the 5 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan 2030. Introduction. October. 6 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. March. 7 Ibid. 8 California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board). 2022. GeoTracker: Kaweah Basin Water Quality Association (AGC100012325). Website: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report?global_id=AGC100012325. Accessed August 16, 2022.
2610
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Geology and Soils
3.7-3
east of the City’s Planning Area, the San Andreas Fault Zone located approximately 60 miles to the west of the City’s Planning Area, and the Pond Fault Zone located approximately 55 miles to the south of the City’s Planning Area (Exhibit 3.7-1).
9 Historically, major earthquakes have been felt and
caused some amount of property damage within the City’s Planning Area. Moreover, it is possible, but unlikely, that previously unknown faults could become active in the area. The State Geologist has not delineated any Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones within or near the City’s Planning Area.10 Project Site
Distant faults have low potential to cause ground shaking on the project site; this is because the magnitude of ground shaking experienced on-site is dependent on the distance to causative faults and the earthquake magnitude (or measure of the amount of energy released during an earthquake event). There are no known faults in close proximity to the project site.11 The faults with the highest potential to affect the proposed project from a design standpoint are the Pond Fault (approximately 61 miles away), Southern Sierra Nevada Fault (approximately 68.4 miles away), and Owens Valley Fault (approximately 74.6 miles away).
Slope Disturbance
Slope disturbance from long-term geologic cycle of uplift, mass wasting, intense precipitation or wind, as well as gravity can result in slope failure in the form of mudslides and rock fall. Uplift refers to the vertical elevation shift of the Earth’s surface often attributed to plate tectonics. Mass wasting refers to a variety of erosional processes from gradual downhill soil creep to mudslides, debris flows, landslides, and rock fall—processes that are commonly triggered by intense precipitation or wind, which varies according to climactic shifts. Often, various forms of mass wasting are grouped together as landslides, which are generally used to describe the downhill movement of rock and soil. Soil creep is a long-term, gradual downhill migration of soil under the influence of gravity and is generally on the order of a fraction of an inch per year. These soils can creep away downslope sides of foundations and reduce lateral support.
City of Visalia
According to the 2017 Tulare Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, areas that are more prone to landslides, mudslides, or debris flows include the foothill and mountain areas where fractured and steep slopes are present, where less-consolidated or weathered soils overlie bedrock, or where inadequate groundcover accelerates erosion.12 The City and the Planning Area is generally flat, with slopes of 0 to 2 percent. In the City, earthquake-induced slope disturbance such as mudslides are unlikely to occur due to the relatively stable geological formation and lack of active faults.
9 California Geologic Survey (CGS). 2022. EQ Zapp. Website: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. Accessed August 16, 2022. 10 City of Visalia. 2014. General Plan 2030. Safety and Noise Element. October. 11 California Geologic Survey (CGS). 2022. EQ Zapp. Website: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. Accessed August 16, 2022. 12 Tulare County Office of Emergency Services. 2018. Tulare County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. March. 2611
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Geology and Soils Draft EIR
3.7-4
Project Site
The project site is located within a seismically stable region, and the City experiences relatively little tectonic activity as compared to other regions of the State. As noted above, the project site itself does not contain active faults that would cause geologic uplifting or other seismic-related hazards.
The project site is relatively flat and does not include foothill or mountain areas; it is located approximately 17 miles from Sierra Nevada foothills, and the project site does not contain weathered soils over bedrock.13
Paleontological Resources
Project Site
The project site is solely underlain by Holocene Great Valley fan deposits. The southwestern portion of the half-mile search area surrounding the project site includes subjacent Holocene Great Valley basin deposits. Holocene Great Valley deposits are too young to be fossiliferous. The nearest Pleistocene deposits are more than five miles east of the project site. It is highly unlikely that Pleistocene deposits are in the shallow subsurface of the project site. Localist V6540, approximately
5.5 miles southeast of the project site, yielded mammoth tooth fragments. There is an absence of any potentially fossiliferous localities within 5 miles of the project site.14
3.7.3 - Regulatory Framework
Federal
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) was established by the United States Congress when it passed the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, Public Law 95–124. In establishing the NEHRP, Congress recognized that earthquake-related losses could be reduced through improved design and construction methods and practices, land use controls and redevelopment, prediction techniques and early warning systems, coordinated emergency preparedness plans, and public education and involvement programs. The four basic goals remain unchanged:
• Develop effective practices and policies for earthquake loss reduction and accelerate their implementation.
• Improve techniques for reducing earthquake vulnerabilities of facilities and systems. • Improve earthquake hazards identification and risk assessment methods, and their use. • Improve the understanding of earthquakes and their effects.
Several key federal agencies contribute to earthquake mitigation efforts. There are four primary NEHRP agencies:
• National Institute of Standards and Technology of the Department of Commerce 13 Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Science Consultants. 2022. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park. August 2. 14 Finger, Kenneth L., PhD. 2022. Paleontological Records Search for the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project. June 20. 2612
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Geology and Soils
3.7-5
• National Science Foundation
• United States Geological Survey (USGS) of the Department of the Interior • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the Department of Homeland Security Implementation of NEHRP priorities is accomplished primarily through original research, publications, and recommendations to assist and guide State, regional, and local agencies in the development of plans and policies to promote safety and emergency planning.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, authorized by Section 402(p) of the federal Clean Water Act, controls water pollution by regulating point sources, such as construction sites and industrial operations that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required to control discharges from a project site, including soil erosion, to protect waterways. A SWPPP describes the measures or practices to control discharges during both the construction and operational phases of the proposed project. A SWPPP identifies project design features and structural and nonstructural Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used to control, prevent, remove, or reduce stormwater pollution from the site, including sediment from erosion.
Paleontological Resources Preservation Act
The Paleontological Resources Preservation Act offers provisions of paleontological resources identified on federal, Native American, or State lands and guidance for their management and protection and promotes public awareness and scientific education regarding vertebrate fossils. The law also requires federal agencies to develop plans for inventory, collection, and monitoring of paleontological resources and establishes stronger criminal and civil penalties for the removal of scientifically significant fossils on federal lands.
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Guidelines
The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP), a national scientific organization of professional Vertebrate Paleontologists, has established standard guidelines that outline acceptable professional practices in the conduct of paleontological resource assessments and surveys, monitoring and mitigation, data and fossil recovery, sampling procedures, specimen preparation, analysis, and curation. Most practicing professional Paleontologists in the nation adhere to the SVP’s assessment, mitigation, and monitoring requirements, as specifically spelled out in its standard guidelines.15 State
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Public Resources Code [PRC] §§ 2621–2630) was passed in 1972 to provide a Statewide mechanism for reducing the hazard of surface fault rupture to structures used for human occupancy. The main purpose of the Act is to prevent the siting of buildings used for human occupancy across the traces of active faults. It should be noted that the 15 The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Website: http://vertpaleo.org/the-Society/Governance-Documents/SVP_Impact_ Mitigation_Guidelines.aspx. Accessed February 22, 2023. 2613
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Geology and Soils Draft EIR
3.7-6
Act addresses the potential hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards, such as seismically induced ground shaking or landslides.
The law requires the State Geologist to identify regulatory zones (known as Earthquake Fault Zones or Alquist-Priolo Zones) around the surface traces of active faults, and to depict these zones on topographic base maps, typically at a scale of 1 inch to 2,000 feet. Earthquake Fault Zones vary in width, although they are often 0.75-mile wide. Once published, the maps are distributed to the affected cities, counties, and State agencies for their use in planning and controlling new or renewed construction. With the exception of single-family wood frame and steel frame dwellings that are not part of a larger development (i.e., four units or more), local agencies are required to regulate development within the mapped zones. In general, construction within 50 feet of an active fault zone is prohibited.
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (PRC §§ 2690–2699.6), which was passed in 1990, addresses earthquake hazards other than surface fault rupture. These hazards include strong ground shaking, earthquake-induced landslides, liquefaction, or other ground failures. Much like the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act discussed above, these seismic hazard zones are mapped by the State Geologist to assist local government in the land use planning process. The Act states, “it is necessary to identify and map seismic hazard zones in order for cities and counties to adequately prepare the safety element of their general plans and to encourage land use management policies and regulations to reduce and mitigate those hazards to protect public health and safety.” The Act also states, “cities and counties shall require, prior to the approval of a project located in a seismic hazard zone, a geotechnical report defining and delineating any seismic hazard.” California Building Code
The State of California provides minimum standards for building design through the California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24). Where no other building codes apply, Chapter 29 regulates excavation, foundations, and retaining walls. The California Building Standards Code (CBC) applies to building design and construction in the State and is based on the federal Uniform Building Code (UBC) used widely throughout the country (generally adopted on a state-by-state or district-by-district basis). The CBC has been modified for California conditions with more detailed regulations and is often viewed as setting forth some of the most stringent mandates in the nation.
The State earthquake protection law (California Health and Safety Code § 19100 et seq.) requires that structures be designed to resist stresses produced by lateral forces caused by wind and earthquakes. Specific minimum seismic safety and structural design requirements are set forth in Chapter 16 of the CBC. The CBC identifies seismic factors that must be considered in structural design. Chapter 18 of the CBC regulates the excavation of foundations and retaining walls, and Appendix Chapter A33 regulates grading activities, including drainage and erosion control and construction on unstable soils, such as expansive soils and areas subject to liquefaction.
The 2019 edition of the CBC is based on the 2018 International Building Code (IBC) published by the International Code Council. The code is updated triennially, and the 2019 edition of the CBC was 2614
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Geology and Soils
3.7-7
published by the California Building Standards Commission in 2019 and took effect starting January 1, 2020. The new 2022 edition of the CBC became effective January 1, 2023. Building permit applications submitted after January 1, 2023, are subject to the 2022 edition of the CBC.
California Public Resources Code
Other State requirements for paleontological resource management are included in Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 and Section 30244. These statutes prohibit the removal of any paleontological site or feature from public lands without permission of the jurisdictional agency, define the removal of paleontological sites or features as a misdemeanor, and require reasonable mitigation of adverse impacts to paleontological resources from developments on public (State, County, City, District) lands.
California State Water Resources Control Board
The five-member California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) allocates water rights, adjudicates water right disputes, develops Statewide water protection plans, establishes water quality standards, and guides the nine Regional Water Quality and Control Boards (RWQCBs) in the major watersheds of the State. The joint authority of water allocation and water quality protection enables the State Water Board to provide comprehensive protection for California’s waters.
In 1999, the State adopted the NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities (Construction Activities General Permit) (State Water Board Order No. 2012- 0006-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002). The General Construction Permit requires that construction sites with 1 acre or greater of soil disturbance, or less than 1 acre but part of a greater common plan of development, apply for coverage for discharges under the General Construction Permit by submitting a Notice of Intent for coverage, developing a SWPPP, and implementing BMPs to address construction site pollutants.
The SWPPP should contain a site map(s) that shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, stormwater collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the project site. The SWPPP must list the BMPs the discharger will use to protect stormwater runoff and the placement of those BMPs.
Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program, a chemical monitoring program for “non-visible” pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs, and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment.
Section A of the Construction General Permit describes the elements that must be contained in a SWPPP. Enrollment under the General Construction Permit is through the Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System. Additionally, the State Water Board is responsible for implementing the Clean Water Act (CWA) and issues NPDES permits to cities and counties through the individual regional boards.
2615
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Geology and Soils Draft EIR
3.7-8
Local Regulations
Tulare County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan A hazard mitigation plan is a formal document that outlays the plans to reduce or eliminate the longterm risk to human life and property from natural or man-made hazards. The City participates in the preparation of the Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJ-LHMP) which covers Tulare County and 11 participating cities. The last MJ-LHMP was prepared in 2011. The plan has been designed to meet four goals: (1) significantly reduce life loss and injuries, (2) minimize damage to structures and property, as well as disruption of essential services and human activities, (3) protect the environment, and (4) promote hazard mitigation as an integrated public policy.
General Plan Seismic Safety Element
The existing Visalia General Plan incorporates the Seismic Safety Element completed in 1974 by the Five-County Seismic Safety Committee, with participation from the Tulare Council of Governments.
The Safety Element determines that ground shaking is the main potential hazard in the southern Central Valley and the risk of ground shaking in the Visalia area is low. The Element includes a number of policies, calling for the creation of a public relations and education program to build awareness; development of an Earthquake Disaster Plan; consideration of seismic hazards in the environmental impact assessment process; and adoption and enforcement of the UBC, among others.
Visalia General Plan
Construction and operation of the proposed project would be subject to applicable policies, laws and regulations contained within the City of Visalia General Plan, City of Visalia Zoning Ordinance, and the City of Visalia Buildings and Construction Regulations, which include, among others, policies pertaining to the avoidance of geologic hazards and/or the protection of unique geologic features.
The policies, goals, and implementation measures in the City of Visalia General Plan for geology, soils and seismicity that are relevant to this analysis are provided below.
Chapter 6: Open Space and Conservation
6.1: Open Space Resources
Objective
OSC-O-4 Create and maintain open space for public health and safety in areas which require special management for regulation.
Chapter 8: Safety and Noise Open Space and Conservation
8.1 Seismic and Geologic Hazards
Objective
S-O-1 Minimize risks of property damage and personal injury posed by geologic and seismic hazards.
Policies
S-P-1 Work with Caltrans to seismically retrofit or replace local ramps and freeway overpass bridges that are categorized as structurally deficient by Caltrans, are located in high ground shaking areas, and/or are necessary for first responders to use during and/ or immediately after a disaster or emergency. 2616
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Geology and Soils
3.7-9
S-P-2 Seismically retrofit or replace public works and/or emergency response facilities that are necessary during and/or immediately after a disaster or emergency.
S-P-3 Update the City’s Emergency Preparedness Plan to include an Earthquake Disaster Plan, and coordinate procedures with the County Emergency Services.
S-P-4 Establish a public relations and education program to increase community awareness for emergency preparedness, including “community emergency preparedness teams.” Involving residents and having voluntary programs to help people prepare is the key to an effective program.
S-P-5 Update subdivision and zoning ordinance review criteria to include seismic considerations.
S-P-6 Continue to inspect unoccupied existing unreinforced masonry structures and “critical facilities” constructed prior to 1948 and develop condemnation procedures to be included in a dangerous building ordinance.
City of Visalia Code
Building and Construction
Section 15.08.010: Adoption of the 2019 California Building Code The 2019 California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2, and published by the International Code Council, is adopted as the Building Code of the City as Municipal Code Section
15.08.010.
Building permit applications submitted after January 1, 2023, are subject to the 2022 edition of the CBC.
Grading, Soils, and Erosion Control Ordinances
Section 16.12.070: Grading and Erosion Control
Every map approved pursuant to this title shall be conditioned on compliance with the requirements for grading and erosion control, including the prevention of sedimentation or damage to off-site property, and is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. (Ordinance 2017-01 (part), 2017: prior code § 9075).
3.7.4 - Methodology
Existing setting information about the project site as well as an evaluation of potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed project were identified based, in part, on a review of available literature, the Geotechnical Evaluation,
16 and the Paleontological Records Search,17 all of which present findings, conclusions, and recommendations concerning development of the proposed project. These evaluations are based, in part, on an engineering analysis of geotechnical properties of the subsurface conditions and evaluation of the underlying soils, as well as review and 16 Ninyo & Moore. 2022. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park. August 2. 17 Finger, Kenneth L., PhD. 2022. Paleontological Records Search for the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project (4119.0039), near the City of Visalia, Tulare County. June 20.
2617
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Geology and Soils Draft EIR
3.7-10
consideration of available data, including, among others, the Visalia General Plan. This information is provided in Appendix E of this Draft EIR.
The loss of any identifiable fossil that could yield information important to prehistory, or that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type of organism, environment, period of time, or geographic region, would be a significant environmental impact. Direct impacts to paleontological resources primarily concern the potential destruction of nonrenewable paleontological resources and the loss of information associated with these resources. This includes the unauthorized collection of fossil remains. If potentially fossiliferous bedrock or surficial sediments are disturbed, the disturbance could result in the destruction of paleontological resources and subsequent loss of information (significant impact). At the project-specific level, direct impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the implementation of paleontological mitigation.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) threshold of significance for a significant impact to paleontological resources is reached when a project is determined to “directly or indirectly destroy a significant paleontological resource or unique geologic feature.” In general, for projects that are underlain by paleontologically sensitive geologic units, the greater the amount of ground disturbance, the higher the potential for significant impacts to paleontological resources. For projects that are directly underlain by geologic units with no paleontological sensitivity, there is no potential for impacts to paleontological resources unless sensitive geologic units which underlie the non-sensitive unit are also affected.
3.7.5 - Thresholds of Significance
The lead agency derives its significance criteria based on the questions in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist. Accordingly, impacts to geology, soils and seismicity would be considered significant environmental effects if the proposed project would:
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 proposed 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 UBC (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. 2618
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Geology and Soils
3.7-11
e) 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. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
3.7.6 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses potential impacts associated with the proposed project and provides feasible mitigation measures where necessary.
Earthquakes
Impact GEO-1a: 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?
Impact Analysis
Primary fault rupture is ground deformation that occurs along the surface trace of the causative fault during an earthquake. The proposed project would introduce people to the project site (construction workers and on-site workers and visitors during operation) and could thus expose people and structures to seismic risks. While the project site is located in a highly seismic region within the influence of multiple faults, the project site is not located within or within close proximity to a known earthquake fault. As previously discussed, the nearest known earthquake fault, as delineated by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, is associated with the Pond Fault that is approximately 61 miles south of the project site (Exhibit 3.7-1). 18 Because of the distance of this fault
to the project site, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving the rupture of a known fault; therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
In addition, construction of the proposed project would be subject to all applicable ordinances of the Visalia Building Code (Chapter 15.08) and other applicable standards and requirements. The City has adopted the CBC 2019 Edition (CCR Title 24), which incorporates substantially the same requirements as the IBC, 2018 Edition, with some modifications and amendments. Building permit applications submitted after January 1, 2023, are subject to the 2022 edition of the CBC. Adherence to all applicable laws and regulations would ensure that any potential fault rupture-related impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant.
Based on the absence of any known active faults within or within close proximity to the project site, and the requirement of the proposed project’s compliance with applicable laws and regulations 18 California Geologic Survey (CGS). 2022. EQ Zapp. Website: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. Accessed August 16, 2022.
2619
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Geology and Soils Draft EIR
3.7-12
including, among others, applicable provisions of the Visalia Building Code, impacts related to fault rupture would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Seismic Ground Shaking
Impact GEO-1b: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Impact Analysis
According to the Tulare County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, the County rarely experiences the effects of even the largest earthquakes from the San Andreas fault, the nearest major fault line located approximately 75 miles away from the City. Only one active fault, the Kern Canyon fault, runs through the County. As noted above, the project site is not near any major faults, although given the active seismicity of the region generally, it is possible that strong seismic ground shaking could be experienced on the project site and thus directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death. Therefore, this is a potentially significant impact.
However, as explained above, there is a robust regulatory framework intended to reduce risk to people and structures associated with strong seismic shaking. Here, prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant would be required to design project buildings and other improvements and infrastructure to withstand substantial ground shaking in accordance with all applicable standards and requirements including, among others, applicable provisions the CBC. The CBC contains seismic safety provisions with the aim of preventing building collapse and structural damage during an earthquake.
In addition, the proposed project would be required to incorporate all recommendations from the Geotechnical Evaluation within project construction and design plans, as outlined in Mitigation Measure (MM) GEO-1. All grading and construction that occurs as a result of the proposed project would be required to adhere to the specifications, procedures, and site conditions contained in the final approved design plans, which would be required to be fully compliant with the seismic recommendations provided by the Geotechnical Evaluation as well as all applicable provisions of the CBC and the Visalia Building Code requirements. The required measures would encompass such items as site preparation, earthwork, site-specific seismic design considerations, foundations, flatwork, utilities, and paving. As such, the proposed project would be required to be constructed in accordance with all applicable codes, which require property line and public roadway setbacks that have the goal of reducing risks to on-site employees from potential hazards associated with the proposed project that could result from an earthquake.
2620
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Geology and Soils
3.7-13
Therefore, based on the foregoing, the proposed project’s required compliance with the robust regulatory framework including, among others, applicable provisions in the Visalia Building Code, the CBC, as well as implementation of MM GEO-1 would ensure that impacts related to ground shaking would be less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-1 Prior to issuance of the grading permit for each project development, the final grading, foundation, and construction plans for the subject proposal shall incorporate all the site-specific earthwork, foundation, floor slab, lateral earth pressure, and pavement design recommendations, as detailed in a Geotechnical Evaluation prepared by a qualified Geotechnical Engineer. The final grading and construction plans for the subject individual specific development shall be reviewed by the City-approved Geotechnical Engineer to confirm compliance with this mitigation measure. Grading operations performed in connection with the subject individual specific development proposal shall satisfy all applicable recommendations included in the Geotechnical Evaluation.
During construction performed in connection with the specific development, the City-approved Geotechnical Engineer shall monitor this construction to ensure the earthwork operations are properly performed in accordance with the foregoing requirements.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
Seismic-Related Ground Failure
Impact GEO-1c: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Impact Analysis
Since saturated soils are a necessary condition for liquefaction, soil layers in areas where the groundwater table is near the surface have higher liquefaction potential than those in which the water table is located at greater depths. According to the Geotechnical Evaluation, no groundwater was encountered in borings during the site investigation; however, data from nearby wells indicate that historic groundwater levels were recorded at levels between 100 and 200 feet below ground surface (BGS). The project site is not mapped for liquefaction hazards by the California Geologic Survey (CGS); accordingly, as detailed more fully in the Geotechnical Evaluation, there are no 2621
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Geology and Soils Draft EIR
3.7-14
significant liquefaction-related seismic hazards that need to be considered as part of project design considerations.19
Based on the foregoing, potential impacts from liquefaction are considered to be low. Moreover, adherence to all applicable standards and requirements including, among others, those set forth in the CBC would help to further ensure that effects from seismic-related ground failure including the potential for liquefaction would be reduced and remain less than significant.
Therefore, with adherence to all required standards and mandates including, among others, implementation of the above-referenced building code requirements (with compliance confirmed by the City), the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Landslides
Impact GEO-1d: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
iv) Landslides?
Impact Analysis
The project site is relatively flat with a gentle slope toward the east with a ground surface elevation of approximately 300 to 305 feet above mean sea level. Therefore, the project site is not expected to have any significant landslide potential, as explained more fully in the Geotechnical Evaluation.
Therefore, development of the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury or death involving landslides, and thus impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Soil Erosion or Topsoil Loss
Impact GEO-2: Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 19 Ninyo & Moore. 2022. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park. August 2. 2622
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Geology and Soils
3.7-15
Impact Analysis
Topsoil refers to the uppermost 6 to 8 inches of soil, which have the highest concentration of organic matter and are where most biological soil activity occurs. Soil erosion occurs when soil is removed by wind and water at a greater rate than it is formed. Soil erosion removes the topsoil first and can continue to transport lower layers. Construction of the proposed project and associated improvements would involve earth-disturbing activities that could expose soils to the effects of wind or water erosion. Therefore, impacts in this regard are potentially significant.
However, the proposed project would disturb at least 1 acre of land and therefore would be required to obtain a Construction General Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), consistent with the City’s General Permit and required to comply with its conditions and standards, which are designed to minimize potential erosion issues. Compliance with the NPDES permit would require the developer to obtain and implement a SWPPP that would prevent sediments and other pollutants from entering the stormwater system. The SWPPP must include a detailed site map(s), including drainage patterns, and identify BMPs that will be used to manage stormwater. The SWPPP must contain measures for both the active construction phase and the post-construction phase. The above requirements have been incorporated as MM GEO-2.
Therefore, construction-related impacts related to soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Post construction, the project site would be covered with a significant amount of impervious surfaces as well as ample landscape. This would help ensure that the topsoil would not be exposed and would not result in soil erosion during project operations. As a result, project operation would have a less than significant impact as it relates to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-2 In order to reduce on-site erosion due to project construction and operation, an erosion control plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared for the site preparation, construction, and post-construction periods by a registered civil engineer or certified professional. The erosion control plan shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) consistent with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The erosion component of the plan must at least meet the requirements of the SWPPP required by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). If earthdisturbing activities are proposed between October 15 and April 15, these activities shall be limited to the extent feasible to minimize potential erosion-related impacts.
Additional erosion control measures may be implemented in consultation with the City of Visalia. Prior to the issuance of any permit, the project proponent shall submit detailed plans to the satisfaction of the City of Visalia. The components of the erosion control plan and SWPPP shall be monitored for effectiveness by the City 2623
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Geology and Soils Draft EIR
3.7-16
of Visalia. Erosion control measures may include, but not be limited to, the following:
i. Limit disturbance of soils and vegetation disturbance removal to the minimum area necessary for access and construction;
ii. Confine all vehicular traffic associated with construction to the right-of-way of designated access roads;
iii. Adhere to construction schedules designed to avoid periods of heavy precipitation or high winds;
iv. Ensure that all exposed soil is provided with temporary drainage and soil protection when construction activity is shut down during the winter periods; and
v. Inform construction personnel prior to construction and periodically during construction activities of environmental concerns, pertinent laws and regulations, and elements of the proposed erosion control measures.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
Unstable Geologic Location
Impact GEO-3: Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the proposed project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Impact Analysis
Because of the relatively flat topography of the project site, the risk of on-site or off-site landslides associated with development of the proposed project is considered negligible.
According to the Geotechnical Evaluation, groundwater fluctuates; however, data from a nearby well indicates that historic groundwater levels were recorded at greater than 100 feet BGS at a well approximately 0.5 miles south of the project site, and as noted above, it is anticipated that similar depths to groundwater are present at the project site.20 As further described in the Geotechnical Evaluation, saturated unconsolidated sediments would need to be present within the upper 50 feet of ground surface to be considered potentially liquefiable.21 Shallow groundwater is not expected at the project site and the project site is not mapped for liquefaction hazards by CGS.22 Other geologic 20 Ninyo & Moore. 2022. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park. August 2. 21 Ibid. 22 California Geologic Survey (CGS). 2022. EQ Zapp. Website: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. Accessed August 16, 2022.
2624
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Geology and Soils
3.7-17
hazards related to liquefaction, such as lateral spreading and dynamic settlement, are therefore also considered low.23
Land subsidence on-site and in the vicinity could result from excessive pumping of the underground aquifer. Groundwater pumping may occur near the site boundary for nearby agricultural purposes, but it is likely that any such pumping would be at levels too small to contribute significantly to subsidence. A review of the aerial imagery for this area shows the presence of an agricultural water supply canal along the northern border of the project site (Modoc Ditch). This is the most likely source for water supplies for the intensive agriculture (orchards) used in the surrounding land uses.
For this reason and as detailed in the Geotechnical Evaluation, the potential risk for land subsidence is considered to be low to negligible.
The potential for soil collapse at the project site is considered negligible as the project site is located on a relatively flat-lying plain. It was determined that the probability of damage from surface fault rupture is considered to be low.24
Moreover, the proposed project would be required to incorporate the recommendations provided by the Geotechnical Evaluation into the proposed project construction and design plans, as outlined in MM GEO-1, which would ensure that any risk associated with lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse is reduced to a less than significant level. Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable laws, regulations, policies, requirements and standards to further reduce potential impacts related to unstable geologic units.
Based on the foregoing, impacts associated with being located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the proposed project, would be considered less than significant with the implementation of MM GEO-1.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Implement MM GEO-1.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
Expansive Soil
Impact GEO-4: 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?
23 Ninyo & Moore. 2022. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park. August 2. 24 Ibid. 2625
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Geology and Soils Draft EIR
3.7-18
Impact Analysis
The Geotechnical Evaluation for the project site concluded the predominant soils are silt with sand, sandy silt, silty sand, poorly graded sand with silt, and poorly graded sand. The shrink-swell behavior of expansive soils can lead to damage of project buildings, infrastructure and improvements over time if not addressed appropriately prior to construction. According to the Geotechnical Evaluation, the soil at the project site has a low expansion potential; moreover, as described above, the proposed project would be required to incorporate recommendations from the Geotechnical Evaluation into project construction and design plans to reduce potential impacts related to unstable soil, in accordance with MM GEO-1. In addition, the proposed project would be required to be comply with all applicable standards and requirements including, among others, applicable provisions of the CBC to reduce potential adverse effects from expansive soils. All grading and construction associated with the proposed project would be required to adhere to the applicable specifications, procedures, and site conditions contained in the final design plans, which would be subject to approval by the City of Visalia Planning Division (Municipal Code 16.12.070). Therefore, while the proposed project could be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the UBC (1994), this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level with incorporation of MM GEO1.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Implement MM GEO-1.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
Wastewater Disposal Systems
Impact GEO-5: 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?
Impact Analysis
The proposed project would use portable bathroom facilities to accommodate on-site workers throughout the construction process. Once constructed, the proposed project would connect to Cityoperated sewer and wastewater, water, and stormwater facilities. Therefore, the proposed would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance
No impact.
2626
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Geology and Soils
3.7-19
Destruction of Paleontological Resource or Unique Geologic Feature Impact GEO-6: Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Impact Analysis
The Paleontological Report (Appendix E) concluded that the project site is located on Holocene alluvium, which is too young to be fossiliferous. The nearest localities of late Pleistocene or older deposits, which have the potential to be fossiliferous, are located approximately 5.5 miles southeast of the project site.25
Based on the Paleontological Records Search performed for the project site and geological map and paleontological literature review, the project site is located on undivided Holocene fan deposits that have no paleontological potential. The project site is not expected to disturb any pre-Holocene deposits that have a higher potential to be fossiliferous.
However, there is always the possibility to disturb or damage previously unknown paleontological resources during subsurface construction activities, which would be a significant impact. Therefore, MM GEO-3 shall be implemented, which would require appropriate identification and treatment of inadvertently uncovered paleontological resources, impacts to paleontological resources would be reduced to less than significant.
Impacts related to the potential to cause substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature are limited to construction. No respective operational impacts would occur.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-3 In the event a fossil is discovered during construction performed in connection with project development, the relevant project developer/contractor shall cease grounddisturbing activities within 15 feet of the find. The qualified Paleontologist shall evaluate the significance of the resources and recommend appropriate treatment measures which shall be implemented by the relevant applicant. In addition, all recovered fossils should be deposited in an appropriate repository, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology, located on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley, where they will be properly curated and made accessible for future study.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. 25 Finger, Kenneth L., PhD. 2022. Paleontological Records Search for the Shirk and Riggin Industrial Park Project (4119.0039), near the City of Visalia, Tulare County. June 20.
2627
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Geology and Soils Draft EIR
3.7-20
3.7.7 - Cumulative Impacts
The geographic scope of the cumulative geology, soils, and seismicity analysis is the project site and its vicinity, which includes an area generally within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site. This is because adverse effects associated with many geological, soils, and seismicity issues tend to be localized; therefore, an area generally within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site would be the area most affected by such activities for purposes of this cumulative analysis. In addition, soil conditions associated with the proposed project, such as differential settlement, liquefaction, expansive soils, and soil creep, are specific to the project site and generally do not contribute to a cumulative effect.
Some or all other cumulative projects may have similar conditions, but they also would not contribute to a general geologic or soil cumulative effect. Chapter 3, Environmental Impact Analysis, Table 3-1, Cumulative Developments No. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 would be within 0.5 mile of the project site. The cumulative setting includes Cumulative Developments No. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7, along with existing agricultural, industrial, and residential uses.
Seismic-related Hazards
Because the cumulative developments are within the project vicinity, they would have similar potential to experience ground shaking from earthquakes and would be exposed to the same ground shaking hazards. MM GEO-1 requires a geotechnical study to evaluate soil conditions and geologic hazards be performed by a qualified Geotechnical Engineer on the project site and to design the project facilities to withstand probable seismically induced ground shaking, liquefaction, and subsidence.
Likewise, they would be subject to the same requirements under the comprehensive regulatory framework. Cumulative developments would be required to adhere to all applicable requirements and standards including, among others, those set forth in the CBC, the General Plan, and Visalia Municipal Code reducing potential hazards associated with seismic ground shaking and ground failure. The purpose of these standards and requirements is to regulate and control the design, construction, quality of materials, use/occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures within its jurisdiction, and by design, it is intended to reduce the risks, to the extent feasible, to people and structures resulting from seismic events. For example, cumulative developments would be subject to the mandatory requirements and standards of the CBC Title 24 (California Green Building Standards Code), which identify site preparation and construction techniques to attenuate the effects of strong ground shaking and seismic-related ground failure.
Additionally, compliance with the CBC ensures proper site preparation and grading practices, adequate design of foundations, and guidelines for the appropriate selection and use of construction materials that would minimize potential impacts associated with seismic-related events. Cumulative developments would also be required to implement recommendations from project-specific geotechnical evaluations to reduce seismic impacts on people and structures. As such, cumulative impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Additionally, for the reasons discussed above, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to this already less than significant impact with incorporation of the identified mitigation. For example, the proposed project would be required to adhere to all 2628
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Geology and Soils
3.7-21
applicable standards and mandates set forth in the comprehensive regulatory framework, as well as to satisfy the identified mitigation measures noted above.
Therefore, the proposed project, in conjunction with other cumulative developments, would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the already less than significant cumulative impact associated with seismic-related hazards.
Soil-related Hazards
Soil conditions associated with the proposed project, such as differential settlement, liquefaction, expansive soils, and soil creep, are specific to the project site and generally do not contribute to a cumulative effect. MM GEO-2 requires the preparation of a SWPPP using BMPs to reduce the potential effects of erosion. Some or all other cumulative projects may have similar conditions, but they would comply with similar measures and would not contribute to a general geologic or soil cumulative effect. Therefore, there is no potentially significant cumulative impact related to soils.
With respect to the contribution of the proposed project to this already less than significant impact, the proposed project would be subject to a comprehensive regulatory framework including requirements and standards pursuant to all applicable General Plan policies, Municipal Code provisions, and the CBC, as well as being required to implement the identified mitigation measures MM GEO-1 and MM GEO-2, all of which would reduce soil-related hazard impacts to a less than significant level. Other cumulative projects would be required to adhere to similar requirements, thereby minimizing cumulative erosion impacts. As such, the proposed project, in conjunction with other cumulative projects, would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to this already less than significant cumulative impact associated with soil-related hazards.
Paleontological Resources and Unique Geologic Feature
The geographic scope related to cumulative unique geologic resources and paleontological resources is the project site and its immediate vicinity. This is because geologic resources and paleontological resource impacts tend to be localized since the integrity of any given resource depends on what occurs only in the immediate vicinity around that resource, such as disruption of soils. The Cumulative Developments 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 listed on Chapter 3, Environmental Impact Analysis, Table 3-1 would fall within this cumulative geographic scope.
The likelihood that unique geologic resources and paleontological resources are present on the proposed project and the cumulative development areas is relatively low, given that the majority of soil disturbance associated with these cumulative developments would take place within Holocene soils too young to be fossiliferous. This is based on the Paleontological Records Search prepared for the project site, which concluded that the nearest vertebrate locality is 5.5 miles to the southeast of the project site. The Paleontological Records Search concluded that there is an absence of fossiliferous localities within 5 miles of the project site. However, in the unlikely event paleontological resources are uncovered during construction, implementation of MM GEO-3 requires construction work to stop within 15 feet of the find. The qualified Paleontologist would evaluate the significance of the resources and recommend appropriate treatment measures that would be implemented by the relevant applicant.
2629
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Geology and Soils Draft EIR
3.7-22
Nevertheless, construction activities associated with implementation of cumulative developments in the vicinity of the project site may have the potential to encounter undiscovered unique geologic resources and paleontological resources. However, these cumulative developments would be required to consider and mitigate, if necessary, for any identified impacts through compliance with applicable federal and State laws and regulations governing unique geologic resources and paleontological resources and other project-specific identified mitigation measures. Although there is the possibility that previously undiscovered resources could be encountered by subsurface earthwork activities, the implementation of mitigation measures would ensure that undiscovered geologic and paleontological resources are not adversely affected by cumulative project-related construction activities, which would prevent the destruction or degradation of potentially significant cultural resources in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, potential cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Additionally, for the reasons discussed above, the proposed project has a low potential for disruption of unique geologic resources and paleontological resources given the nature of the soils on-site.
Moreover, the proposed project incorporates mitigation to ensure that impacts are reduced to a level of insignificance in the event previously unknown unique geologic resources and/or paleontological resources are uncovered during project construction. Although project construction has the potential to disturb paleontological resources, with the implementation of MM GEO-3, the project would not result in significant impacts to paleontological resources. Given this minimal impact and the requirement for similar mitigation for other projects in the area, cumulative impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.
Based on the foregoing, the proposed project, in conjunction with other cumulative developments, would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to this already less than significant impact related to unique geologic and paleontological resources.
Level of Cumulative Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-1, MM GEO-2, and MM GEO-3.
Level of Cumulative Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. 2630
41150039 • 03/2023 | 3.7-1_regional_earthquake_fault_map.cdr Exhibit 3.7-1
Regional Earthquake Fault Map
CITY OF VISALIA
SHIRK & RIGGIN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Source: Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, 2005. 2631
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2632
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-1
3.8 - Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8.1 - Introduction
This section describes the existing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions setting and potential effects from project implementation on the project site and its surrounding area. Information included in this section is based on the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Analysis Report prepared for the proposed project (Appendix B). One public comment was received during the EIR scoping period related to GHG emissions.
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District) dated September 28, 2022, related to project construction and operational emissions, health risk assessment criteria, and recommended air pollutant reduction strategies.
3.8.2 - Environmental Setting
Greenhouse Effect, Global Warming, and Climate Change
Climate change is a change in the average weather of the Earth that is measured by alterations in wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. These changes are assessed using historical records of temperature changes occurring in the past, such as during previous ice ages. Many of the concerns regarding climate change use this data to extrapolate a level of statistical significance specifically focusing on temperature records from the last 150 years (the Industrial Age) that differ from previous climate changes in rate and magnitude.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) constructed several emission trajectories of GHGs needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. In its Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC predicted that the global mean temperature changes from 1990 to 2100, given six scenarios, could range from 1.1°C (degrees Celsius) to 6.4°C. Regardless of analytical methodology, global average temperatures and sea levels are expected to rise under all scenarios.1 The report also concluded that “[w]arming of the climate system is unequivocal,” and that “[m]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” An individual project cannot generate enough GHG emissions to effect a discernible change in global climate. However, every development project participates in the potential for global climate change by its incremental contribution of GHGs combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of GHGs, which when taken together constitute potential influences on global climate change.
Greenhouse Gases and Global Emission Sources
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as GHGs. The effect is analogous to the way a greenhouse retains heat. Common GHGs include water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), 1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z.
Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Website: www.ipcc.ch /publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html. Accessed June 1, 2023. 2633
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-2
nitrous oxide (N2O), chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), ozone, and aerosols. Natural processes and human activities emit GHGs. The presence of GHGs in the atmosphere affects the earth’s temperature. It is believed that emissions from human activities, such as electricity production and vehicle use, have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere beyond the level of naturally occurring concentrations.
Individual GHG compounds have varying global warming potential and atmospheric lifetimes. The global warming potential is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere. To describe how much global warming a given type and amount of GHG may cause, the CO2 equivalent (CO2e) is used. The calculation of the CO2 equivalent is a consistent methodology for comparing GHG emissions since it normalizes various GHG emissions to a consistent reference gas, CO2. For example, CH4’s warming potential of 25 indicates that CH4 has 25 times greater warming effect than CO2 on a molecule-per-molecule basis. A CO2 equivalent is the mass emissions of an individual GHG multiplied by its global warming potential. As described in Table 3.8-1, the GHGs defined by Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (see the Climate Change Regulatory Environment section for a description) include CO2, CH4, N2O, HFC, PFC, and SF6. A seventh GHG, nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), was added to Health and Safety Code Section 38505(g)(7) as a GHG of concern.
Table 3.8-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse Gas Description and Physical Properties Sources Nitrous oxide Nitrous oxide (laughing gas) is a colorless GHG. It has a lifetime of 114 years. Its
global warming potential is 298.
Microbial processes in soil and water, fuel
combustion, and industrial processes.
CH4 Methane is a flammable gas and is the
main component of natural gas. It has a
lifetime of 12 years. Its global warming
potential is 25.
Methane is extracted from geological
deposits (natural gas fields). Other sources
are landfills, fermentation of manure, and
decay of organic matter.
CO2 CO2 is an odorless, colorless, natural
GHG. CO2’s global warming potential is 1.
The concentration in 2005 was 379 parts
per million (ppm), which is an increase of
about 1.4 ppm per year since 1960.
Natural sources include decomposition of
dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria,
plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation
from oceans; and volcanic outgassing.
Anthropogenic sources are from burning
coal, oil, natural gas, and wood.
HFCs HFCs are a group of GHGs containing
carbon, chlorine, and at least one
hydrogen atom. Global warming
potentials range from 140 to 11,700.
HFCs are synthetic man-made chemicals
used as a substitute for chlorofluorocarbons
in applications such as automobile air
conditioners and refrigerants.
PFCs PFCs have stable molecular structures
and only break down by ultraviolet rays
about 60 kilometers above Earth’s
surface. Because of this, they have long
lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000
years. Global warming potentials range
from 6,500 to 9,200.
Two main sources of PFCs are primary
aluminum production and semiconductor
manufacturing.
2634
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-3
Greenhouse Gas Description and Physical Properties Sources SF6 SF6 is an inorganic, odorless, colorless,
and nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It has a
lifetime of 3,200 years. It has a high
global warming potential, 23,900.
This gas is man-made and used for insulation
in electric power transmission equipment in
the magnesium industry, in semiconductor
manufacturing, and as a tracer gas.
Nitrogen trifluoride Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) was added to Health and Safety Code Section
38505(g)(7) as a GHG of concern. It has a
high global warming potential of 17,200.
This gas is used in electronics manufacture
for semiconductors and liquid crystal
displays.
Sources: Compiled from a variety of sources, primarily
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D.
Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Website:
www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html. Accessed June 1, 2023.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K. and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. Website:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/syr/. Accessed June 1, 2023.
The State of California has begun the process of addressing pollutants referred to as short-lived climate pollutants. The short-lived climate pollutants include three main components: black carbon, fluorinated gases, and methane. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) approved the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy in March 2017. The ARB has completed an emission inventory of these pollutants, identified research needs, identified existing and potential new control measures that offer co-benefits, and coordinated with other State agencies and districts to develop measures.2 Sources of black carbon are already regulated by the ARB, and air district criteria pollutant and toxic regulations that control PM2.5 from diesel engines and other combustion sources.3 Additional controls on the sources of black carbon specifically for their GHG impacts beyond those required for toxic and fine particulates are not likely to be needed.
Human Health Effects of GHG Emissions
GHG emissions from development projects would not result in concentrations that would directly impact public health. However, the cumulative effects of GHG emissions on climate change have the potential to cause adverse effects to human health.
The United States Global Change Research Program, in its report, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States,4 has analyzed the degree to which impacts on human health are expected to impact the United States.
Potential effects of climate change on public health include:
2 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2016. Proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/shortlived/shortlived.htm. Accessed June 1, 2023. 3 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2015. Low Carbon Fuel Standard Regulation. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2015/lcfs2015/lcfs2015.htm. Accessed June 1, 2023. 4 The United States Global Change Research Program. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. 2009. Website:
https://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023. 2635
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-4
• Direct Temperature Effects: Climate change may directly affect human health through increases in average temperatures, which are predicted to increase the incidence of heat waves and hot extremes.
• Extreme Events: Climate change may affect the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, such as hurricanes and extreme heat and floods, which can be destructive to human health and well-being.
• Climate-Sensitive Diseases: Climate change may increase the risk of some infectious diseases, particularly those diseases that appear in warm areas and are spread by mosquitoes and other insects, such as malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, and encephalitis. • Air Quality: Respiratory disorders may be exacerbated by warming-induced increases in the frequency of smog (ground level ozone) events and particulate air pollution.5 Although there could be health effects resulting from changes in the climate and the consequences that can occur, inhalation of GHGs at levels currently in the atmosphere would not result in adverse health effects, with the exception of ozone and aerosols (PM). At very high indoor concentrations (not at levels existing outside), CO, CH4, SF6, and some chlorofluorocarbons can cause suffocation as the gases can displace oxygen.6
Existing GHG Emissions
United States GHG Inventory
In 2020, United States GHG emissions totaled 5,222 million metric tons (MMT) CO2e. Figure 3.8-1 presents 2020 United States GHG emissions by economic sector. Emissions decreased from 2019 to 2020 by 11 percent due to a 13 percent decrease in transportation emissions driven by decreased demand as a result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Electric power sector emissions also decreased 10 percent, reflecting both a slight decrease in demand from the COVID-19 pandemic and a continued shift from coal to less carbon intensive natural gas and renewables.
Since 1990, United States emissions have increased at an average annual rate of 0.1 percent. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2020 (after accounting for sequestration from the land sector) were 21 percent below 2005 levels.7
5 The United States Global Change Research Program. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. 2009. Website:
https://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023. 6 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2010. Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Carbon Dioxide. Website: www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0103.html. Accessed June 1, 2023. 7 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2020. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks. April. Website:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks. Accessed June 1, 2023. 2636
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-5
Note: Emissions and removals from Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry are excluded.
Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2022. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks. April.
Website: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks. Accessed June 1, 2023.
Figure 3.8-1: U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Allocated to Economic Sectors (1990-2020) California GHG Inventory
As the second largest emitter of GHG emissions in the U.S., California contributes a large quantity (369.1 MMT CO2e in 2020) of GHG emissions to the atmosphere. Emissions of CO2 are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion and are attributable in large part to human activities associated with transportation, industry/manufacturing, electricity and natural gas consumption, and agriculture. In California, the transportation sector is the largest emitter at 38 percent of GHG emissions, followed by industry/manufacturing at 23 percent of GHG emissions (Figure 3.8-2).8 8 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2019. California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory – 2019 Edition. August 12. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data. Accessed June 1, 2023. 2637
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-6
Source: California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2023. California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory – 2000-2020 Emissions Trends and Indicators Report. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data. Accessed June 1, 2023.
Figure 3.8-2: 2020 California Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector City of Visalia
The baseline inventory year for the City of Visalia’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) is 2005.9 The City baseline inventory involves two components: a community sector inventory (i.e., the full geographic area of City’s jurisdiction) and a separate inventory of the municipal sector, which includes government owned and operated facilities and activities. Table 3.8-2 provides the baseline inventory.
Table 3.8-2: City of Visalia 2005 Community GHG Emissions Baseline Inventory by Sector Sector MT CO2e/year Percentage of Total
Transportation 490,063 55%
Commercial/Industrial 208,342 23%
Residential 202,533 22%
Solid Waste2 -7,8623 -1%
Total 3,745,115 100%
Notes:
1 Emissions from municipal operations only 2 For the solid waste sector, CO2 and CH4 emissions could not be separated because the EPA WARM software utilized to calculate the emissions only provides results in CO2e. 3 The solid waste CO2e figure denotes a net GHG emissions figure resulting from landfilled solid waste, composting, and recycling activities in 2005. The negative figure is a result of the GHG emissions avoided specifically from composting and recycling efforts implemented by the City in 2005.
Source: Strategic Energy Innovations (SEI). 2013. City of Visalia Climate Action Plan (CAP). December. 9 Strategic Energy Innovations (SEI). 2013. City of Visalia Climate Action Plan. Website:
https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=28939. Accessed June 1, 2023. 2638
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-7
The City’s community activities emitted approximately 906,337 metric tons of CO2e in 2005. The transportation sector was the most significant of all community sectors, comprising 55 percent, followed by the commercial/industrial sector (23 percent), and then closely by the residential sector (22 percent). In addition, the City’s municipal operations emitted approximately 16,446 metric tons of CO2e in 2005.
3.8.3 - Regulatory Framework
Federal
The following are actions regarding the federal government, GHGs, and fuel efficiency that are relevant in this analysis.
GHG Endangerment
Massachusetts v. EPA (Supreme Court Case 05-1120) was argued before the United States Supreme Court on November 29, 2006, in which it was petitioned that the EPA regulate four GHGs, including CO2, under Section 202(a)(1) of the CAA. A decision was made on April 2, 2007, in which the Supreme Court found that GHGs are air pollutants covered by the CAA. The Court held that the Administrator must determine whether emissions of GHGs from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution, which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision.
Clean Vehicles
Congress first passed the Corporate Average Fuel Economy law in 1975 to increase the fuel economy of cars and light-duty trucks. The law has become more stringent over time. On May 19, 2009, former President Obama put in motion a new national policy to increase fuel economy for all new cars and trucks sold in the United States. On April 1, 2010, the EPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Safety Administration announced a joint final rule establishing a national program that would reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel economy for new cars and trucks sold in the United States.
The first phase of the national program applied to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and mediumduty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. The new standards for model years 2017 through 2025 applied to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles. The final standards are projected to result in an average industry fleetwide level of 163 grams/mile of CO2 in model year 2025, which is equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) if achieved exclusively through fuel economy improvements.
The EPA and the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) issued final rules for the first national standards to reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel efficiency of heavy-duty trucks and buses on September 15, 2011, which became effective November 14, 2011. For combination tractors, the agencies proposed engine and vehicle standards that began in the 2014 model year and would achieve up to a 20 percent reduction in CO2 emissions and fuel consumption by the 2018 model year. For heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, the agencies proposed separate gasoline and diesel truck standards, which phase in starting in the 2014 model year and would achieve up to a 10 percent reduction for gasoline vehicles, and a 15 percent reduction for diesel vehicles by 2018 model 2639
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-8
year (12 and 17 percent respectively if accounting for air conditioning leakage). Lastly, for vocational vehicles, the engine and vehicle standards would achieve up to a 10 percent reduction in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions from the 2014 to 2018 model years.
The State of California received a waiver from the EPA to have separate, stricter Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. Although global climate change did not become an international concern until the 1980s, efforts to reduce energy consumption began in California in response to the oil crisis in the 1970s, resulting in the incidental reduction of GHG emissions. To manage the State’s energy needs and promote energy efficiency, AB 1575 created the California Energy Commission (CEC) in 1975. It should be noted that the EPA recently reinstated California’s waiver for its GHG and ZeroEmission Vehicle (ZEV) mandates that were more stringent than other federal regulations implementing the CAA.10 In September 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-79- 20, which requires sales of all new passenger vehicles to be zero-emission by 2035 and additional measures to eliminate harmful emissions from the transportation sector.
Consolidated Appropriations Act (Mandatory GHG Reporting) On September 22, 2009, the EPA issued the Final Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule, which became effective January 1, 2010. Under the rule, suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial GHGs, manufacturers of vehicles and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of GHG emissions are required to submit annual reports to the EPA.
New Source Review
The EPA issued a final rule on May 13, 2010, that established thresholds for GHGs that define when permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities.
The EPA estimates that facilities responsible for nearly 70 percent of the national GHG emissions from stationary sources will be subject to permitting requirements under this rule. This includes the nation’s largest GHG emitters—power plants, refineries, and cement production facilities.
Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units
As required by a settlement agreement, the EPA proposed new performance standards for CO2 emissions for new, affected, fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating units on March 27, 2012. New sources greater than 25 megawatts would be required to meet an output-based standard of 1,000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour (MWh) based on the performance of widely used natural gas combined cycle technology.
Cap-and-Trade
Cap-and-trade refers to a policy tool where emissions are limited to a certain amount and can be traded, or provides flexibility on how the emitter can comply. 10 Harvard Law School. 2022. EPA’s Revived Clean Cars Waiver for California. April. Website:
https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/2022/04/epas-revived-clean-cars-waiver-for-california/. Accessed June 1, 2023. 2640
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8-9
The Western Climate Initiative partner jurisdictions developed a comprehensive initiative to reduce regional GHG emissions to 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. The partners are California, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Québec. Currently only California and Québec are participating in the Cap-and-Trade Program.11
California
Legislative Actions to Reduce GHGs
The State of California legislature has enacted a series of bills that constitute the most aggressive program to reduce GHGs of any state in the nation. Some legislation such as the landmark AB 32 California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 was specifically enacted to address GHG emissions.
Other legislation, such as the Title 24 and Title 20 energy standards, were originally adopted for other purposes, such as energy and water conservation, but also provide GHG reductions. This section describes the major provisions of the legislation.
Assembly Bill 1493 Pavley Regulations and Fuel Efficiency Standards California AB 1493, enacted on July 22, 2002, required the ARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks. It should be noted that the EPA reinstated California’s waiver for its GHG and ZEV mandates that were more stringent than other federal regulations implementing the CAA.12
The second phase of the implementation for the Pavley Bill was incorporated into Amendments to the Low emission Vehicle Program referred to as low-emission vehicle (LEV) III or the Advanced Clean Cars program. The Advanced Clean Car program combines the control of smog-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package of requirements for model years 2017 through 2025. The regulation is anticipated to reduce GHGs from new cars by 34 percent from 2016 levels by 2025. The new rules will reduce pollutants from gasoline and diesel-powered cars and will deliver increasing numbers of zero-emission technologies, such as full battery electric cars, newly emerging plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cell cars.
Assembly Bill 32
The California State Legislature enacted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.
AB 32 requires that GHGs emitted in California be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020.
The ARB is the State agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of GHGs. The ARB approved the 1990 GHG emissions level of 427 MMT CO2e on December 6, 2007.13 Therefore, to meet the State’s target, emissions generated in California in 2020 were required to be equal to or less than 427 MMT CO2e. Emissions in 2020 in a Business as Usual (BAU) scenario were estimated to 11 Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES). 2015. Cap-and-Trade Basics. Website: https://www.c2es.org/content/cap-andtrade-basics/. Accessed June 1, 2023. 12 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2022. WHAT THEY ARE SAYING: EPA Restoration of California Waiver Will Support State Climate Action, Improve Air Quality, and Advance our Electric Vehicle Future. March 11. Website:
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/what-they-are-saying-epa-restoration-california-waiver-will-support-state-climate. Accessed June 1, 2023. 13 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2007. Staff Report. California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Level and 2020 Emissions Limit. November 16, 2007. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/staff_report_1990_level.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023. 2641
City of Visalia—Shirk and Riggin Industrial Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR
3.8-10
be 596 MMT CO2e, which do not account for reductions from AB 32 regulations.14 At that rate, a 28 percent reduction was required to achieve the 427 MMT CO2e 1990 inventory. In October 2010, the ARB prepared an updated 2020 forecast to account for the effects of the 2008 recession and slower forecasted growth. Under the updated forecast, a 21.7 percent reduction from BAU is required to achieve 1990 levels.15
California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan
The ARB Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) contains measures designed to reduce the State’s emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020 to comply with AB 32.16 The Scoping Plan identifies recommended measures for multiple GHG emission sectors and the associated emission reductions needed to achieve the year 2020 emissions target—each sector has a different emission reduction target. Most of the measures target the transportation and electricity sectors. As stated in the Scoping Plan, the key elements of the strategy for achieving the 2020 GHG target include:
• Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance standards;
• Achieving a Statewide renewables energy mix of 33 percent; • Developing a California Cap-and-Trade Program that links with other Western Climate Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system; • Establishing targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout California and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets; • Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing State laws and policies, including California’s clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS); and
• Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high global warming potential gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the State’s long-term commitment to AB 32 implementation.
In addition, the Scoping Plan differentiates between “capped” and “uncapped” strategies. Capped strategies are subject to the proposed Cap-and-Trade Program. Implementation of the capped strategies was calculated to achieve a sufficient amount of reductions by 2020 to achieve the emission target contained in AB 32. Uncapped strategies that would not be subject to the cap-andtrade emissions caps and requirements were provided as a margin of safety by accounting for additional GHG emission reductions.17 The ARB approved the First Update to the Scoping Plan on 14 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2008. (includes edits made in 2009) Climate Change Scoping Plan, a framework for change.
Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023 15 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2010. 2020 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Projection and BAU Scenario Emissions Estimate. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-bau. Accessed June 1, 2023. 16 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2008. (includes edits made in 2009) Climate Change Scoping Plan, a framework for change.
Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023. 17 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2008 (includes edits made in 2009). Climate Change Scoping Plan, a framework for change.