# San Joaquin Valley Unified

Air Pollution Control District



# 2012 PM2.5 Plan

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

December 2012ii



### SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

GOVERNING BOARD 2012

CHAIR: WILLIAM O’BRIEN

Supervisor, Stanislaus County

VICE CHAIR: SKIP BARWICK

Vice Mayor, City of Tulare

MEMBERS:

OLIVER L. BAINES III Councilmember, City of Fresno

TONY BARBA Supervisor, Kings County

SALLY J. BOMPREZZI Councilmember, City of Madera

JUDITH G. CASE Supervisor, Fresno County

RONN DOMINICI Supervisor, Madera County

HENRY JAY FORMAN, PH.D Appointed by Governor

HAROLD HANSON Councilmember, City of Bakersfield LEROY ORNELLAS Supervisor, San Joaquin County

ALEXANDER C. SHERRIFFS, M.D. Appointed by Governor

CHRIS VIERRA Mayor, City of Ceres

HUB WALSH Supervisor, Merced County

RAYMOND A. WATSON Supervisor, Kern County

J. STEVEN WORTHLEY Supervisor, Tulare County

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER:

SEYED SADREDINSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 2



## Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

December 2012

LEAD AGENCY: SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTR OL DISTRICT 1990 East Gettysburg Avenue

Fresno CA 93726-0244

Agency CEQA Contact: Mark Montelongo, Senior Air Qu ality Specialist Phone: (559) 230-6000 Fax: (559) 230-6061

Project Sponsor San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Poll ution Control District and Address: 1990 E. Gettysburg Avenue

Fresno CA 93726-0244

Project Location: The 2012 PM2.5 Plan applies to emission sources (primarily emission sources of directly emitted PM2 .5, nitrogen oxides (NOx), and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), ) located within the boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) (see Exhibit 1, Map of Basin Boundaries).

Project Contact: Jessica Fierro, Supervising Air Qu ality Specialist Anna Myers, Senior Air Quality Specialist Phone: (559) 230-6000San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 3



## Exhibit 1

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict BoundariesSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 4



## TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................

................................................... .............. 4

A. Introduction ......................................

................................................... ..................... 5

B. Purpose and Authority .............................

................................................... .............. 6

C. Project Background Information ....................

................................................... ........ 6

Project Description ...............................

................................................... ................. 6

Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required .. ............................................. 8

D. Decision to Prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaratio n ............................................. 8

E. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ........

................................................... ... 9

F. Determination .....................................

................................................... ................... 9

G. Environmental Impact Checklist ....................

................................................... ...... 10

I. Aesthetics ........................................

................................................... ................... 10

II. Agricultural Resources ............................

................................................... ............ 11

III. Air Quality .......................................

................................................... .................... 13

IV. Biological Resources ..............................

................................................... ............. 15

V. Cultural Resources ................................

................................................... .............. 17

VI. Geology/Soils .....................................

................................................... ................. 18

VII. Greenhouse Gases ..................................

................................................... ........... 20

VIII. Hazards & Hazardous Materials......................

................................................... .... 22

IX. Hydrology / Water Quality .........................

................................................... .......... 26

X. Land Use/Planning .................................

................................................... ............. 27

XI. Mineral Resources .................................

................................................... ............. 29

XII. Noise .............................................

................................................... ...................... 30

XIII. Population and Housing ............................

................................................... .......... 32

XIV. Public Services....................................

................................................... ................ 33

XV. Recreational Facilities ...........................

................................................... .............. 34

XVI. Transportation/Traffic ............................

................................................... .............. 36

XVII.Utilities / Service Systems ..................

................................................... ................ 37

XVIII.Mandatory Findings of Significance ..........

................................................... ......... 39

H. List of Attachments ...............................

................................................... ............... 41San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 5 A. Introduction

CEQA requires each public agency to adopt objective s, criteria, and specific procedures
consistent with CEQA Statutes and the CEQA Guidelin es for administering its responsibilities under CEQA, including the orderly evaluation of projects and preparation of environmental documents. The Distri ct adopted its Environmental

Review Guidelines

(ERG) in 2001. The ERG was prepared to comply wit h this requirement and is an internal document used to com ply with CEQA.

The basic purposes of CEQA are to:

• Inform governmental decision-makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activ ities.

• Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly

reduced.

• Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the enviro nment by requiring changes in projects through use of alternatives or mitigati on measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasibl e.

• Disclose to the public the reasons why a government al agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose if significa nt environmental effects are

involved.

Under CEQA the Lead Agency is required to:

• Conduct preliminary reviews to determine if applica tions are subject to CEQA [CCR §15060].

• Conduct review to determine if projects are exempt from CEQA [CCR §15061].

• Prepare Initial Studies for projects that may have adverse environmental impacts [CCR §15063].

• Determine the significance of the environmental eff ects caused by the project [CCR §15064].

• Prepare Negative Declarations or Mitigated Negative Declarations for projects with no significant environmental impacts [CCR §150 70].

• Prepare, or contract to prepare, EIRs for projects with significant environmental impacts [CCR §15081].

• Adopt reporting or monitoring programs for the chan ges made to projects or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment [PRC §21081.6 & CCR §150 97].

• Comply with CEQA noticing and filing requirements.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 6 B. Authority

The District has discretionary authority to impleme nt the District control measures, incentives, and other District options identified i n the Plan. As such, the District serves as Lead Agency; California Environmental Quality Ac t (CEQA) Guidelines §15367.

C. Project Background Information

Project Background

The 2012 PM2.5 Plan (Plan) presents the San Joaquin Valley Air Polluti on Control District’s (District) strategy for achieving the Na tional Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter with a diameter of 2 .5 microns or less (PM2.5), as established by the United States Environmental Prot ection Agency (EPA) in 2006.

After approval by the California Air Resources Boar d (ARB), the Plan will be submitted to EPA for review. Following receipt of the Plan, E PA must determine Plan completeness within six months. As required by the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 110k, the EPA must act on the Plan within one year of finding the Plan complete. EPA approval of the Plan places it in the State Impleme ntation Plan (SIP) as required by the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA’s Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule,

Final Rule (72 FR

20586-20667).

In addition to meeting the requirements of the CAA and containing measures needed to attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, t he SIP includes the latest technical information, including emissions inventory, monitor ing data, and computer modeling results. The Plan is divided into several chapters, with supporting documents provided as appendices. The District developed the Plan with an extensive public process, including workshops and draft documents provided by the District in April, June, and

October of 2012.

Project Description

The Plan is divided into several chapters and appen dices. These chapters are briefly

summarized below:

Executive Summary The Executive Summary discusses the District’s comm itment to expeditious PM2.5 attainment and summarizes key Plan concepts.

Chapter 1 Introduction This chapter summarizes applicable federal requirem ents, the District’s Guiding Principles for the Plan, the Valley’s unique PM2.5 challenges, and the health impacts

associated with PM2.5San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 7 Chapter 2 Risk-based Strategy This chapter describes the District’s Risk-based St rategy is being utilized in the development of this Plan to maximize public health benefits.

Chapter 3 Air Quality in the San Joaquin Valley: C hallenges and Trends While presented with unique geographical and meteor ological challenges, the San Joaquin Valley has made significant progress in red ucing total PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 precursor emissions. PM2.5 concentrations ha ve also decreased as emissions have been reduced, despite impacts of uncontrollabl e meteorological conditions. This chapter summarizes the Valley’s PM2.5 challenges, t he progress that has been made reducing emissions, and recent ambient PM2.5 trends

.

Chapter 4 Scientific Foundation and PM2.5 Modeling Results This chapter provides an overview of the scientific foundation for this PM2.5 plan. It describes Study Agency and other research efforts r elated to this plan, the nature of PM2.5 in the Valley, and PM2.5 species. It also su mmarizes the regional modeling effort and the results of the analyses conducted fo r this plan. These results show which emissions control strategies will most effectively assure attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and improved PM2.5 air quality throughout the Valley.

Chapter 5 Regulatory Control Measures This chapter contains a discussion about regulation s contributing to PM2.5 improvement, a description of federal RACT/RACM req uirements, and the District’s ongoing approach for evaluating potential new contr ol measures for opportunities for emissions reductions. The regulatory control strat egies will be summarized in this chapter accompanied by a rule making schedule.

Chapter 6 Incentive Programs This chapter describes the role of the District’s r obust incentive program in reducing air pollution and expediting attainment.

Chapter 7 Technology Advancement This chapter discusses the District’s Technology Ad vancement program, through which the District identifies, solicits, and supports tec hnology advancement opportunities. The goal is to accelerate technology development that m ay provide additional emission reductions as part of the District’s multi-faceted approach to attain increasingly stringent ozone and PM2.5 air quality standards. Meeting such standards will require significant advancements in low-emissions technologies from mob ile and stationary sources.

Chapter 8 Innovative Strategies This chapter describes the District’s additional ef forts to reduce air pollution emissions through policy efforts, interagency collaboration, and community outreach.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 8 Chapter 9 Progress Toward Attainment of the 2006 P M2.5 Standard This chapter explains and demonstrates reasonable f urther progress (RFP), demonstrates the Valley’s attainment year, synthesi zes the RACM demonstration, and discusses contingency measures.

Appendices

The Plan makes reference to the following appendice s:

Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis Appendix B: Emissions Inventory Appendix C: Mobile Source Control Strategies Appendix D: Stationary and Area Source Control Eva luation Appendix E: California Regional PM10/PM2.5 Air Qua lity Study Publications Appendix F: SJV PM2.5 SIP Modeling Protocol Appendix G: Weight of Evidence Appendix H: Emissions Reductions Credits (ERC)

Other appendices may be added as needed to show add itional analysis relevant to Plan development.

Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required

The District has discretionary authority to impleme nt the District control measures, incentives, and other District options identified i n the Plan. It does not have authority to approve or implement the State of California measur es identified in the Plan, nor does the District have land use authority to implement m easures identified by local governments in the Plan. ARB must approve this pla n and then officially transmit it to EPA. EPA’s final rule approving the plan would pla ce it in to the SIP.

D. Decision to Prepare a Negative Declaration

District staff has proposed the 2012 PM2.5 Plan, in corporated herein by reference. The Negative Declaration demonstrates that the proposed Plan would not have an adverse impact on air quality. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15063(a), District staff prepared an Initial Study for the proposed project. The Distric t finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant ef fect on the environment. The District issued a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Decla ration that was made available for public review and comment from November 9, 2012 to December 8, 2012. The District received no comments during the comment period. Upo n approval of the proposed Plan by the District’s Governing Board, District staff w ill file a Notice of Determination with each County Clerk within the boundaries of the Dist rict, CEQA Guidelines §15075(d).San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 10 G. Environmental Impact Checklist

I. Aesthetics

Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially

Significant Impact

Unless Mitigated Less Than

Significant Impact No

Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a

scenic vista? X

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock, outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? X

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X

I. Aesthetics

Scenic Vistas and Visual Character (a-d)

Conclusion: The Project will not have an impact on scenic vist as, damage scenic resources, degrade visual character in and around t he sites or create new sources of light or glare.

Discussion: The Plan demonstrates that existing regulations re cently adopted under previous air quality attainment demonstration plans and CEQA processes also serve as control measures for this PM2.5 Plan. These adopted regulations will dramatically reduce directly emitted PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 p recursors (NOx and SOx) as they are fully implemented over the next few years, grea tly contributing to the Valleys progress towards the 2006 PM2.5 standard. The Plan also includes additional control measures for future consideration and adoption; how ever, these new control measures will be developed within their own public process a nd CEQA analysis. As such, adoption of the Plan would not require any changes in the ph ysical environment that would obstruct any scenic vistas or views of interest to the public. In addition, the Plan would not create aesthetically offensive sites visible to the public and no significant adverse aesthetic or recreation impacts are expected from t he Plan. As a result, the Plan may have a beneficial effect on scenic resources by imp roving visibility as well as improving air quality in the San Joaquin Valley. Therefore, t he District concludes there is no substantial evidence of record to support a conclus ion that approval of the Plan would have a detrimental impact on aesthetics, as identif ied above (a-d).

Mitigation: None required.

References: 2012 PM2.5 PlanSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 11 II. Agricultural Resources

Potentially Significant Impact Potentially

Significant Impact

Unless Mitigated Less Than

Significant Impact No

Impact In determining whether impacts to agricultural reso urces are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural L and Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1197) prepared by the California Department of Conservati on as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland. In determinin g whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protecti on regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project a nd the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in F orest Protocols adopted by the California Air

Resource Board. Would the 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 non-agricultural use? X

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220 (g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resource Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104 (g))? X

d) Result in the loss of forest land or

conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or

conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X

II. Agricultural Resources

Farm and Forest Lands (a-e)

Conclusion: The Project will not conflict with existing zonin g and will not have an impact on agriculture and forest lands.

Discussion: The Plan demonstrates that existing regulations re cently adopted under previous air quality attainment demonstration plans and CEQA processes also serve as control measures for this PM2.5 Plan. These adopted regulations will dramatically reduce directly emitted PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 p recursors (NOx and SOx) as theySan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 12 are fully implemented over the next few years, grea tly contributing to the Valleys progress towards the 2006 PM2.5 standard. The Plan also includes additional control measures for future consideration and adoption; how ever, these new control measures will be developed within their own public process a nd CEQA analysis. Control measures provided in the Plan will not result in su bstantive conversion of prime or unique farmland to non-agricultural use and will no t conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or Williamson Act contract. PM2.5 levels are expected to be lowered over the life of the Plan and could provide benefit s to agricultural resources by reducing the adverse impacts of PM2.5 emissions on plants an d animals. Any new regulatory control measure commitment identified in the Plan, will be developed within its own public process and CEQA analysis. Therefore, the Di strict concludes there is no substantial evidence of record to support a conclus ion that approval and implementation of the project would have a detrimental impact on a gricultural resources, as identified above (a-e).

Mitigation: None required.

References: 2012 PM2.5 PlanSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 13 III. Air Quality
Potentially Significant Impact Potentially

Significant Impact

Unless Mitigated Less Than

Significant Impact No

Impact Where available, the significance criteria establis hed by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to ma ke the following determinations. Would the Project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? X

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? X

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? X

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X

III. Air Quality (a-e)

Conclusion: This project will not conflict with any other air q uality plans, substantially contribute to or create an air quality violation, r esult in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants, expose sensitive r eceptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odors.

Discussion: The Plan demonstrates that existing regulations rec ently adopted under previous air quality attainment demonstration plans and CEQA processes also serve as control measures for this PM2.5 Plan. These adopted regulations will reduce directly emitted PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 precursors (NOx a nd SOx) as they are fully implemented over the next few years per the establi shed timeline in the adopted rules, greatly contributing to the Valley’s progress towar ds the 2006 PM2.5 standard. The Plan

also includes additional control measures for futur e consideration and adoption; however, these new control measures will be develop ed in the future and will have their own public process and CEQA evaluation. Hazardous r isk assessments and other analyses will be completed as individual rules and regulations are developed and adopted.

Federal and state laws require emission control mea sures in areas like the San Joaquin Valley where air pollution exceeds ambient air qual ity standards. Attainment is achieved through adopting and implementing cost-effective ai r pollution control measures, providing meaningful incentives for reducing emissi ons, and by developing creativeSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 14 alternatives for achieving emissions reductions. T he purpose of the Plan is to move the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin toward attainment of t he federal and state ambient air quality standards for PM2.5 through incentive and c ontrol strategy implementation. District staff has prepared an Emission Reduction Analysis, incorporated herein by reference which demonstrates that implementation of the Plan would result in 25.0 tons per day reduction in PM2.5 emissions, 256.6 tons pe r day of NOx emissions, and 3.8 tons per day of SOx emissions from the winter inven tory. Thus, implementation of the Plan would result in a benefit for improving air qu ality in the San Joaquin Valley Air

Basin.

Based on analysis of the reasonably foreseeable con trol measures included in the Plan, the Plan will not violate any air quality standards or significantly contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. Hazardous risk assessments and other analyses are completed as needed as individual rules are develop ed and adopted. No alteration of air movement, moisture, temperature, climate change , or creation of objectionable odors will result from adoption of the Plan.

The Plan identifies control options to meet target emissions reductions of each control measure without fully developing the details for ho w those reductions would be achieved. Subsequent rule making will determine th e actual air quality reductions and impacts. As such, these issues will continue to be evaluated as the Plan’s control measure commitments are developed in their post-pla n public processes. However, the net result is improved air quality. Therefore, the District concludes there is no substantial evidence of record to support a conclus ion that approval of the Plan would have a detrimental impact on air quality, as identi fied above (a-e).

Mitigation: None required.

References: 2012 PM2.5 PlanSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 15 IV. Biological Resources

Would the Project : Potentially Significant Impact Potentially

Significant Impact

Unless Mitigated Less Than

Significant Impact No

Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and

Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? X

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 Game or

US Fish and Wildlife Service? X

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other

means? X

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery

sites? X

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? X

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? X

IV. Biological Resources (a-f)

Conclusion: The Project will have no impact on candidate, sen sitive, special status species or any adopted conservation plans.

Discussion: The Plan demonstrates that existing regulations rec ently adopted under previous air quality attainment demonstration plans and CEQA processes also serve as control measures for this PM2.5 Plan. These adopted regulations will dramatically reduce directly emitted PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 p recursors (NOx and SOx) as theySan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 16 are fully implemented over the next few years, grea tly contributing to the Valleys progress towards the 2006 PM2.5 standard. The plan also includes additional control measures for future consideration and adoption; how ever, these new control measures will be developed within their own public process a nd CEQA analysis.

Adoption of the Plan and subsequent implementation are not expected to adversely affect existing plant or animal species or communit ies, unique or endangered plant or animal species, or agricultural crops. No significa nt adverse impacts to biological resources are anticipated from the Plan because bio logical resources are already disturbed on existing sites and areas where the Pla n will be implemented. Further, improvements in air quality from the Plan are expec ted to provide health benefits to plants and animal species, as well as to humans in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin.

The Plan would not affect any current land use poli cies or designations. For these reasons, the proposed project would not adversely a ffect protected wetlands as defined by §404 of the Clean Water Act, including, but not limited to marshes, vernal pools, coastal wetlands, et., through direct removal, fil ling, hydrological interruption or other means. Implementation of the Plan is not anticipate d to affect land use plans, local policies or ordinances. Therefore, the District con cludes there is no substantial evidence of record to support a conclusion that approval of the Plan would have a detrimental impact on biological resources, as identified above (a-f).

Mitigation: None required.

References: 2012 PM2.5 PlanSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 17 V. Cultural Resources

Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially

Significant Impact

Unless Mitigated Less Than

Significant Impact No

Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as

defined in '15064.5? X

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to '15064.5? X

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X

d) Disturb any human remains, including those

interred outside of formal cemeteries? X

V. Cultural Resources (a-d)

Conclusion: The Project will not have an impact on cultural res ources.

Discussion: The Plan demonstrates that existing regulations rec ently adopted under previous air quality attainment demonstration plans and CEQA processes also serve as control measures for this PM2.5 Plan. These adopted regulations will dramatically reduce directly emitted PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 p recursors (NOx and SOx) as they are fully implemented over the next few years, grea tly contributing to the Valleys progress towards the 2006 PM2.5 standard. The Plan also includes additional control measures for future consideration and adoption; how ever, these new control measures will be developed within their own public process a nd CEQA analysis. As a result, significant impacts to cultural resources are not e xpected from the Plan because it will not require the destruction of existing buildings o r sites with prehistoric, historic, archaeological, religious, or ethnic significance. Adoption of the Plan is not anticipated to result in any activities or promote any programs that could have a significant adverse impact on cultural resources within the District. T herefore, the District concludes there is no substantial evidence of record to support a conc lusion that approval of the Plan would have a detrimental impact on cultural resourc es, as identified above (a-d).

Mitigation: None needed.

References: 2012 PM2.5 PlanSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 18 VI. Geology / Soils

Would the Project Potentially Significant Impact Potentially

Significant Impact

Unless Mitigated Less Than

Significant Impact No

Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, asdelineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the

area or based on other substantial

evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special

Publication 42. X

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X

iv) Landslides? X

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? X

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? X

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? X

VI. Geology/Soils (a-e)

Conclusion: The Project will not result in substantial soil e rosion or the loss of topsoil nor have an impact on the capacity of the soil to s upport wastewater disposal systems.

Discussion: The Plan demonstrates that existing regulations r ecently adopted under previous air quality attainment demonstration plans and CEQA processes also serve as control measures for this PM2.5 Plan. These adopted regulations will dramatically reduce directly emitted PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 p recursors (NOx and SOx) as they are fully implemented over the next few years, grea tly contributing to the Valleys progress towards the 2006 PM2.5 standard. The Plan also includes additional controlSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 19 measures for future consideration and adoption; how ever, these new control measures will be developed within their own public process a nd CEQA analysis.

Plan implementation provides no provisions that wou ld call for the disruption or overcovering of soil, changes in topography or surface relief features, the erosion of beach sand, or a change in existing siltation rates. Any facilities affected by the control measures included in this Plan would also be requir ed to comply with relevant Uniform Building Code (a standard safeguard against major s tructural failures and loss of life) requirements in effect at the time or initial const ruction or modification of a structure. The local cities or counties are responsible for as suring that projects comply with the Uniform Building Code as part of the issuance of th e building permits and can conduct inspections to ensure compliance. The District does not have land use authority (California Health and Safety Code, Sec. 40716(b)), so the District is generally prohibited from encouraging or prohibiting specific land uses in specific locations in the Valley. As such, adoption of the Plan will not incr ease the exposure of people or property to geological hazards, faults, rupture, se ismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard.

The proposed Plan’s control measures are focused on efforts to reduce PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 precursors (NOx and SOx) from d isturbed and already existing operations. Any resulting facility modifications ar e not anticipated to require substantial grading or construction activities. Similarly, the proposed Plan does not include control measures that require paving to reduce fugitive dus t emissions from dirt roads or unpaved parking areas. The proposed project does no t have the potential to substantially increase the area subject to compacti on or over-covering since the subject areas would be limited in size and, typically, have already been graded or displaced in some way. Therefore, significant adverse soil eros ion impacts are not anticipated from implementing the Plan, as identified above (a-e).

Mitigation: None required.

References: 2012 PM2.5 PlanSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 20 VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially

Significant Impact

Unless Mitigated Less Than

Significant Impact No

Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? X

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? X

VII. Greenhouse Gases (a, b)

Discussion: Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are gases that absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range, trapping heat in the earth’s atmosphere. There are no “attainment” concentration standards established by the Federal or State government for greenhouse gases. In fact, GHGs are not genera lly thought of as traditional air pollutants because greenhouse gases, and their impa cts, are global in nature, while traditional “criteria” air pollutants affect the he alth of people and other living things at ground level, in the general region of their releas e to the atmosphere. Some greenhouse gases occur naturally and are emitted in to the atmosphere through natural processes. Other GHGs are created and emitted solel y through human activities. The principal greenhouse gases that enter the atmospher e because of human activities are carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), and fluorinated carbons. Additional information on GHG and global climate ch ange can be found in the District staff report titled: Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts Under t he California Environmental Quality Act.

The PM2.5 Plan provides a strategy by the District for achieving the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5), as established by EPA in 2006. The Plan a pplies to emission sources (primarily sources of directly emitted PM2.5 nitrog en oxides (NOx), and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), located within the boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley. The Plan demonstrates that existing regulations recently adopted under pr evious air quality attainment demonstration plans and CEQA processes also serve a s control measures for this PM2.5 Plan. The existing control measures identifie d in the Plan are focused on those efforts, to contribute to reducing PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 precursors (NOx and SOx) from disturbed and already existing operations

.

The Plan also includes additional control measures for future consideration and adoption; however, these new control measures will be developed with their own public process and CEQA analysis to determine air quality and GHG impacts.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 21 The potential exists for certain control measures i n the plan to decrease GHG emissions. The rulemaking process will identify the control options of each the control measure commitment. As noted above, the details res ulting from the rulemaking process would determine the overall GHG and potenti al climate change impact.

As a result, these impacts will continue to be eval uated as the Plan’s control measure commitments are developed in their post-Plan public processes. The desired goal is improved air quality for the San Joaquin Valley. Th erefore, the District concludes there is no substantial evidence of record to support a c onclusion that approval of the Plan would have a detrimental impact on greenhouse gas e missions, as identified above (a,b).

Mitigation: None required.

References: 2012 PM2.5 PlanSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 22 VIII. Hazards & Hazardous Materials

Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially

Significant Impact

Unless Mitigated Less Than

Significant Impact No

Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous

materials? X

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials

into the environment? X

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? X

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the

environment? X

e) For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? X

f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? X

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent

to urbanized areas or where residences are

intermixed with wildlands? X

VIII. Hazards & Hazardous Materials (a-h)

Conclusion: The Project will not expose the public to hazardou s materials. The Project will not interfere with emergency response or evacu ation plans; nor will it expose people

or structures to risks from wildland fires.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 23 Discussion: The Plan demonstrates that existing regulations re cently adopted under previous air quality attainment demonstration plans and CEQA processes also serve as control measures for this PM2.5 Plan. These adopted regulations will dramatically reduce directly emitted PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 p recursors (NOx and SOx) as they are fully implemented over the next few years, grea tly contributing to the Valleys progress towards the 2006 PM2.5 standard. The Plan also includes additional control measures for future consideration and adoption; how ever, these new control measures will be developed within their own public process a nd CEQA analysis. As control measures undergo rule development, hazardous risk a ssessments and other analyses are conducted to identify any potential hazards. Th ese potential hazards are addressed in separate CEQA documents accompanying the rule, i n the rule development and adoption process.

It is anticipated that facilities included on the G overnment Code §65962.5 list affected by the Plans control measures would continue to man age any and all hazardous materials in accordance with federal, state, and lo cal regulations. Most of the control measures identified in the Plan are not anticipated to impact any clean-up activities or contaminated sites; therefore, no significant adver se impacts are anticipated.

Implementation of the Plan would not adversely affe ct any airport land use plan or result in any safety hazard for people residing or working in the San Joaquin Valley. The U.S. Department of Transportation (Federal Aviation Admi nistration Advisory Circular AC 70/7460-2k) provides information regarding the type s of projects that may affect navigable airspace. Projects that involve construct ion or alteration of structures greater than 200 feet above ground level within a specified distance from the nearest runway; objects within 200,000 feet of an airport or seapla ne base with at least one runway more than 3,200 feet in length and the object would exce ed a slope of 100:1 horizontally (100 feet horizontally for each one foot vertically from the nearest point of the runway; etc., may adversely affect navigable airspace. However, t he control measures provided in the Plan would not require construction of tall str uctures near airports so potential impacts to airport land use plans or safety hazards to people residing or working in the vicinity of local airports are not anticipated.

The Plan would not impair implementation of, or phy sically interfere with any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation pla n. Any existing facilities affected by the control measures provided in the Plan would typically have their own emergency response plans for their facilities already in plac e. Emergency response plans are typically prepared in coordination with the local c ity or county emergency plans to ensure the safety of not only the public, but the f acility employees as well. Adoption of the proposed Plan is not anticipated to interfere w ith any emergency response procedures or evacuation plans.

In addition, since facilities that are affected by the Plan are not typically located near wildland or forest areas, implementing control meas ures has no potential to increase the

risk of wildland fires.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 24 Therefore, the District concludes there is no subst antial evidence of record to support a conclusion that approval of the Plan would have a d etrimental impact on hazardous and hazardous materials, as identified above (a-h).

Mitigation: None required.

References: 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Government Code §65962.5San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 25 IX. Hydrology / Water Quality

Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially

Significant Impact

Unless Mitigated Less Than

Significant Impact No

Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? X

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? X

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through

the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in

substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite? X

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through

the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or

amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? X

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? X

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X

g Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? X

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect

flood flows? X

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the

failure of a levee or dam? X

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow XSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 26 IX. Hydrology / Water Quality (a-j)

Conclusion: The Project will not violate any water quality st andards or waste discharge requirements and will not degrade water q uality. The Project will not have an impact groundwater supplies, interfere substantiall y with groundwater recharge, or drainage patterns. The Project will not expose peop le or structures to flood hazards, seiche, tsunamis or mudflows.

Discussion: The Plan demonstrates that existing regulations rec ently adopted under previous air quality attainment demonstration plans and CEQA processes also serve as control measures for this PM2.5 Plan. These adopted regulations will dramatically reduce directly emitted PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 p recursors (NOx and SOx) as they are fully implemented over the next few years, grea tly contributing to the Valleys progress towards the 2006 PM2.5 standard.The Plan a lso includes additional control measures for future consideration and adoption; how ever, these new control measures will be developed within their own public process a nd CEQA analysis.

Implementation of the Plan would not require action that would violate any established local, state, or federal standards. Any potential f acilities affected by the Plan that generate wastewater are subject to waste discharge or pretreatment requirements are assumed to comply with all relevant wastewater requ irements, waste discharge regulations, standards for stormwater runoff, and a ny other relevant requirements for direct discharges into sewer systems. These standar ds and permits require water quality monitoring and reporting for onsite water-r elated activities. Should the volume or discharge limits change as a result of implementing control measures, the facility would be required to consult with the appropriate Regiona l Water Quality Control Board and/or

the local sanitation district to discuss these chan ges. As such, implementation of the Plan would not cause any exceedances of water quali ty standards or waste discharge requirements.

The Plan contains no control measure commitments th at would substantially increase water usage at facilities, generate any new structu res that could alter existing drainage patterns. In addition, the District does not have l and use authority and is generally prohibited from encouraging or prohibiting specific land uses in specific locations in the Valley (California Health and Safety Code, Sec. 407 16 (b)). The Plan does not require any new construction or relocation of existing hous ing or other types of facilities and, as such, would not require the placement of housing or other structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. Therefore, the District conclude s that there is no substantial evidence of record to support a conclusion that approval of the Plan would have a detrimental impact on aesthetics, as identified above (a-j).

Mitigation: None required.

References: 2012 PM2.5 PlanSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 27 X. Land Use / Planning

Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially

Significant Impact

Unless Mitigated Less Than

Significant Impact No

Impact a) Physically divide an established community? X

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? X

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X

X. Land Use/Planning (a, b, c)

Conclusion: The Project will not divide an established communi ty or conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations

.

Discussion: The Plan demonstrates that existing regulations a lready adopted under previous air quality attainment demonstration plans can also serve as control measures for this PM2.5 Plan. These adopted regulations will dramatically reduce directly emitted PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 precursors (NOx and SOx) as they are fully implemented over the next few years, greatly contributing to th e Valleys progress towards the 2006

PM2.5 standard. Several new control measure commitm ents were identified in the Plan, however, these new control measures will be develop ed within its own public process and CEQA analysis.

The District does not have land use authority and i s generally prohibited from encouraging or prohibiting specific land uses. As such, the Plan and its provisions have no characteristics that would directly change land use, zoning or land use plans or directly affect the land use classification, or loc ation criteria of any public or private residential, commercial, industrial, or public land use facility. Any facilities affected by the proposed Plan would still be anticipated to com ply with, and not interfere with, any applicable land use plans, zoning ordinances, habit at conservation or natural community conservation plans. No provisions in the Plan would directly affect these plans, policies, or regulations.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 28 Population growth, land development, housing, traff ic, and air quality are linked. The eight Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) wit hin the SJVAB, which are also regional transportation planning agencies, account for these links when designing ways to improve air quality, transportation systems, lan d use, compatibility and housing opportunities in the region. Land use planning is handled at the local level and contributes to planning (e.g., growth projections), but the Plan does not affect local government land use planning decisions.

The eight MPOs drafted the local Reasonably Availab le Control Measure (RACM) approach for the Plan. Implementation of the local RACM approach is documented in the proposed plan.

Mitigation: None required.

References: 2012 PM2.5 PlanSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 29 XI. Mineral Resources

Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially

Significant Impact

Unless Mitigated Less Than

Significant Impact No

Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known

mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? X

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? X

XI. Mineral Resources (a, b)

Conclusion: The Project will not have an impact on mineral res ources.

Discussion: The Plan demonstrates that existing regulations r ecently adopted under previous air quality attainment demonstration plans and CEQA processes also serve as control measures for this PM2.5 Plan. These adopted regulations will dramatically reduce directly emitted PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 p recursors (NOx and SOx) as they are fully implemented over the next few years, grea tly contributing to the Valleys progress towards the 2006 PM2.5 standard. The Plan also includes additional control measures for future consideration and adoption; how ever, these new control measures will be developed within their own public process a nd CEQA analysis.

Implementation of the Plan would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region and the residents o f the state or of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a loca l general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. District control measures in the pro posed Plan are not anticipated to deplete non-renewable mineral resources, such as ag gregate materials, metal ores, etc., at an accelerated rate or in a wasteful manne r because District control measures are typically not mineral resource-intensive measur es. Therefore, significant adverse impacts to mineral resources are not anticipated, a s identified above (a-b).

Mitigation: None required.

References

2012 PM2.5 PlanSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 30 XII. Noise

Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially

Significant Impact

Unless Mitigated Less Than

Significant Impact No

Impact a) Exposure of persons to or generation of

noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? X

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? X

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? X

e) For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? X

f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to

excessive noise levels? X

XII. Noise (a-f)

Conclusion: The Project will not result in increased noise exp osure and will not expose people residing or working in the project area to e xcessive noise levels.

Discussion: The Plan demonstrates that existing regulations r ecently adopted under previous air quality attainment demonstration plans and CEQA processes also serve as control measures for this PM2.5 Plan. These adopted regulations will dramatically reduce directly emitted PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 p recursors (NOx and SOx) as they are fully implemented over the next few years, grea tly contributing to the Valleys progress towards the 2006 PM2.5 standard. The Plan also includes additional control measures for future consideration and adoption; how ever, these new control measures will be developed within their own public process a nd CEQA analysis.

The Plan may result in affected facilities installi ng air pollution control equipment or modify their operations to reduce potential station ary source emissions. However, any new regulatory control measure commitment identifie d in the Plan, will be developed within its own public process and CEQA analysis.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 31 Implementation of the Plan is not anticipated to su bstantially increase ambient (operational) noise levels, either permanently or i ntermittently, or expose people to excessive noise levels that would be noticeably abo ve and beyond existing ambient levels. In addition, the Plan is not anticipated to increase any groundborne vibration levels because air pollution control equipment is n ot typically vibration intensive. Consequently, the Plan would not directly or indire ctly cause substantial noise or excessive groundborne vibration impacts.

Implementation of the Plan would not interfere with any applicable airport land use plans and would not result in any excessive noise levels to affected residences and workers pursuant to existing rules, regulations and require ments. Potential facilities affected by the control measures identified in the Plan, are st ill subject to compliance with existing community noise ordinances and applicable OSHA or C al/OSHA workplace noise reduction requirements. As noted in the above discu ssion, there are no components of the proposed Plan that would substantially increase ambient noise levels, either intermittently or permanently. Therefore, the Distr ict concludes there is no substantial evidence of record to support a conclusion that app roval of the Plan would have a detrimental impact on noise, as identified above (a -f).

Mitigation: None required.

References: 2012 PM2.5 PlanSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 32 XIII. Population / Housing

Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially

Significant Impact

Unless Mitigated Less

Than Signific

ant Impact No

Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? X

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X

XIII. Population and Housing (a, b, c)

Conclusion: The Project will not result in a substantial grow th in population growth or the displacement of people or housing units.

Discussion: The Plan demonstrates that existing regulations rec ently adopted under previous air quality attainment demonstration plans and CEQA processes also serve as control measures for this PM2.5 Plan. These adopted regulations will dramatically reduce directly emitted PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 p recursors (NOx and SOx) as they are fully implemented over the next few years, grea tly contributing to the Valleys progress towards the 2006 PM2.5 standard. The Plan also includes additional control measures for future consideration and adoption; how ever, these new control measures will be developed within their own public process a nd CEQA analysis.

The Plan is not anticipated to generate any signifi cant effects, either directly or indirectly, on the District’s population or populat ion distribution. Provisions in the Plan would not result in the creation of any industry th at would affect population growth or directly or indirectly induce the construction of s ingle- or multiple-family units. The District does not anticipate that affected faciliti es will be required to hire additional personnel to operate and maintain new control equip ment on site, because air pollution control equipment is typically not labor-intensive equipment. In the event that new employees are hired, it is anticipated that the exi sting local labor pool in the District can accommodate any increase in demand for workers that might occur as a result of adopting the proposed Plan. As such, adopting the proposed Plan is not anticipated to result in significant changes in population densiti es or induce significant growth in population. Therefore, the District concludes there is no substantial evidence of record to support a conclusion that approval of the Plan w ould have a detrimental impact on population and housing, as identified above (a-c).

Mitigation: None required.

References: 2012 PM2.5 PlanSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 33 XIV. Public Services

Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially

Significant Impact

Unless Mitigated Less Than

Significant Impact No

Impact a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public

services: i) Fire protection? X

ii) Police protection? X

iii) Schools? X

iv) Parks? X

v) Other public facilities? X

XIV. Public Services

Conclusion: The Project will not require additional public se rvices and will not negatively impact the existing facility’s ability t o provide services.

Discussion: The Plan demonstrates that existing regulations re cently adopted under previous air quality attainment demonstration plans and CEQA processes also serve as control measures for this PM2.5 Plan. These adopted regulations will dramatically reduce directly emitted PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 p recursors (NOx and SOx) as they are fully implemented over the next few years, grea tly contributing to the Valleys progress towards the 2006 PM2.5 standard. The Plan also includes additional control measures for future consideration and adoption; how ever, these new control measures will be developed within their own public process a nd CEQA analysis.

The implementation of the Plan is not anticipated to generate significant adverse impacts to public services (i.e., fire departments, police departments, and local governments). The Plan would not result in the need for new or physically altered government facilities in order to maintain acceptab le service ratios, response times or other performance objectives. Therefore, the Distri ct concludes there is no substantial evidence of record to support a conclusion that app roval of the Plan would have a detrimental impact on public services, as identifie d above (a).

Mitigation: None required.

References: 2012 PM2.5 PlanSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 34 XV. Recreation

Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially

Significant Impact

Unless Mitigated Less Than

Significant Impact No

Impact a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or

other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be

accelerated? X

b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? X

XV. Recreational Facilities (a, b)

Conclusion: The Project will not have an impact on neighborho od or regional parks, or any other local recreational facilities.

Discussion: The Plan demonstrates that existing regulations re cently adopted under previous air quality attainment demonstration plans and CEQA processes also serve as control measures for this PM2.5 Plan. These adopted regulations will dramatically reduce directly emitted PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 p recursors (NOx and SOx) as they are fully implemented over the next few years, grea tly contributing to the Valleys progress towards the 2006 PM2.5 standard.The Plan a lso includes additional control measures for future consideration and adoption; how ever, these new control measures will be developed within their own public process a nd CEQA analysis.

Provisions of the proposed Plan would not directly affect land use plans, policies, ordinances, or regulations. Land use and other plan ning considerations are determined by local governments. In addition, land use or plan ning requirements including those related to recreational facilities, would not be al tered by the Plan. The proposed Plan does not have the potential to directly or indirect ly induce population growth or redistribution. As a result, the Plan would not inc rease the use of or demand for existing neighborhood and/or regional parks or other recreat ional facilities, nor would it require the construction or expansion of recreational facil ities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Further, impro vements in air quality from the Plan are expected to provide health benefits to plant an d animal species, potentially improving recreational facilities. Therefore, the D istrict concludes there is no substantial evidence of record to support a conclusion that app roval of the Plan would have a detrimental impact on recreational facilities, as i dentified above (a,b).

Mitigation: None required.

References: 2012 PM2.5 PlanSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 35 XVI. Transportation / Traffic

Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially

Significant Impact

Unless Mitigated Less Than

Significant Impact No

Impact a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing

measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including

mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation systems, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and

mass transit? X

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of

service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? X

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change

in location that results in substantial safety risks? X

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? X

e) Result in inadequate emergency

access? X

f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such

facilities? XSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 36 XVI. Transportation/Traffic (a-f)

Conclusion: The Project will not conflict with any circulation plans, congestion management programs, or alternative transportation facilities. Project related traffic will not change air traffic patterns or include hazardou s design features and, therefore, will not pose a safety risk.

Discussion: The Plan demonstrates that existing regulations re cently adopted under previous air quality attainment demonstration plans and CEQA processes also serve as control measures for this PM2.5 Plan. These adopted regulations will dramatically reduce directly emitted PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 p recursors (NOx and SOx) as they are fully implemented over the next few years, grea tly contributing to the Valleys progress towards the 2006 PM2.5 standard. The Plan also includes additional control measures for future consideration and adoption; how ever, these new control measures will be developed within their own public process a nd CEQA analysis.

Implementation of the Plan is not anticipated to su bstantially increase vehicle trips or vehicle miles traveled in the San Joaquin Valley. A s described in the Plan, the District supports alternative transportation and other effor ts to reduce vehicle miles traveled, as these efforts contribute to improve PM2.5 air quali ty. Therefore, implementing the Plan control measures could ultimately provide transport ation improvements and congestion

reduction benefits.

The Plan contains no provisions pertaining to air t raffic levels and is not anticipated to result in direct or indirect increases in roadway d esign hazards or incompatible risks. Implementation of the Plan would not conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation prog rams. The Plan is not anticipated to generate any significant adverse impacts to transpo rtation or traffic systems. Therefore,

the District concludes there is no substantial evid ence of record to support a conclusion that approval of the Plan would have a detrimental impact on transportation/traffic, as identified above (a-f).

Population growth, land development, housing, traff ic, and air quality are linked. The eight Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) wit hin the SJVAB, which are also regional transportation planning agencies, account for these links when designing ways to improve air quality, transportation systems, lan d use, compatibility and housing opportunities in the region. Land use planning is handled at the local level and contributes to planning (e.g., growth projections), but the Plan does not affect local government land use planning decisions.

The eight MPOs drafted the local Reasonably Availab le Control Measure (RACM) approach for the Plan. Implementation of the local RACM approach is documented in the proposed plan.

Mitigation: None required.

References: 2012 PM2.5 PlanSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 37 XVII. Utilities / Service Systems

Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially

Significant Impact

Unless Mitigated Less Than

Significant Impact No

Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control

Board? X

b) Require or result in the construction

of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant

environmental effects? X

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant

environmental effects? X

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded

entitlements needed? X

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing

commitments? X

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs? X

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations

related to solid waste? X

XVII. Utilities / Service Systems (a-g)

Conclusion: The Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements or require the construction of new wastewater or storm water facilities. The Project will have sufficient water supplies and new or expanded entitlements are not required. The Project will comply with all solid waste regulation s and will not have an impact on

landfills.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 38 Discussion: The Plan demonstrates that existing regulations rec ently adopted under previous air quality attainment demonstration plans and CEQA processes also serve as control measures for this PM2.5 Plan. These adopted regulations will dramatically reduce directly emitted PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 p recursors (NOx and SOx) as they are fully implemented over the next few years, grea tly contributing to the Valleys progress towards the 2006 PM2.5 standard. The Plan also includes additional control measures for future consideration and adoption; how ever, these new control measures will be developed within their own public process a nd CEQA analysis.

The Plan will not result in any demand for new util ities or service systems or result in any substantial demand on existing sources. There a re no provisions in the Plan that would affect existing communication systems, sewer or septic tanks, or regional water

treatment or distribution facilities. The Plan woul d not result in any demand for new utilities or service systems, or result in any subs tantial demand on existing sources. Therefore, the District concludes there is no subst antial evidence of record to support a conclusion that approval of the Plan would have a d etrimental impact on utilities and service systems, as identified above (a-d).

Mitigation: None required.

References: 2012 PM2.5 PlanSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 39 XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance

Would the Project Potentially Significant Impact Potentially

Significant Impact

Unless Mitigated Less Than

Significant Impact No

Impact a) Does the Project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce

the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlifepopulation to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X

b) Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively Considerable"

means that the incremental effects of a Project are considerable when

viewed in connection with the effects of past Projects, the effects of other current Projects, and the effects of probable future Projects)? X

c) Does the Project have environmental effects, which will

cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X

XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance

Impacts on the Environment and Special Status Speci es and Cumulative Impacts (a, b)

Conclusion: The Project will have no impact on the environment and special status plant and animal species. In addition, the Project will not have cumulatively significant impacts on the environment, plant and animal specie s, or the human population.

Discussion: The Plan demonstrates that existing regulations r ecently adopted under previous plans and CEQA processes also serve as con trol measures for this PM2.5 Plan. These adopted regulations will dramatically r educe directly emitted PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 precursors (NOx and SOx) as the y are fully implemented over the next few years, greatly contributing to the Valley’ s progress towards the 2006 PM2.5San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 40 standard. Any new regulatory control measure commit ment identified in the Plan, will be developed within its own public process and CEQA an alysis.

The proposed Plan is not anticipated to impact any biological resources including wildlife and the resources on which it relies, thre aten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the majo r periods of California history or prehistory. Overall improvements in air quality ar e, ultimately, anticipated to provide substantial benefits to local biological resources in the District.

Mitigation: None required.

Impacts on Humans (c)

Conclusion: The Project will not result in environmental impa cts that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings.

Discussion: The Plan is not anticipated to create significant adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The Distric t anticipates that as the plan is implemented and the air quality with respect to PM2 .5 improves, substantial human

health benefits would occur.

Mitigation: None required.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 41 H. List of Attachments

I. INITIAL STUDY DISTRIBUTION LIST

59 cities within District Boundaries (Planning Dire ctors)

Eight Counties within District Boundaries (Planning Directors)

Caltrans, District 6

P.O. Box 12616 Fresno, CA 93779

California Department of Fish and Game San Joaquin Valley Region

1234 East Shaw Avenue Fresno, CA 93726

Kern Council of Governments 1401 19th Street, Suite 300 Bakersfield, CA 93301

Kings County Association of Governments 1400 W. Lacey Blvd. Hanford, CA 93230

Tulare County Association of Governments 210 N. Church Street, Suite B Visalia, CA 93291

Merced County Association of Governments

369 West 18th Street Merced, CA 95340

Council of Fresno County Governments 2035 Tulare Street, Suite 201 Fresno, CA 93721

San Joaquin Council of Governments

555 E. Weber Ave Stockton, CA 95202

Madera County Transportation Commission 2001 Howard Road, Suite 201 Madera, CA 93637San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict December 10, 2012

Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Page 42 Regional Water Quality Control Board

Fresno Office

1685 “E” Street Fresno, CA 93706

Stanislaus Council of Governments 1111 “I” Street, Suite 308 Modesto, CA 95354

Office of Planning & Research

1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814