Appendix G hazards and wildfire: map each question to the source record before drafting

The short answer

Appendix G’s hazardous-materials list question and its wildfire questions require different source records. The hazards question asks whether a project would be located on a site included on a list compiled under Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard. The wildfire section asks a separate set of questions for projects located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. Start with a dated record of the specific statute, public source, map, local record, and project fact being reviewed. Neither an environmental database result nor an FHSZ map completes the answer.

Why these questions should not share one generic “constraints” note

An inherited spreadsheet or map screenshot often loses the facts that determine how far a source result can be used. For Hazards IX(d), that includes the relevant list category, source record, matching method, and the relationship between the returned record and the project. For Wildfire XX, it includes whether the project is in or near an SRA or a very high FHSZ, the map/recommendation/local designation date, and the project conditions addressed by the four questions.

A first-pass source record keeps the factual starting point separate from the analyst’s conclusion. That makes it easier to revise a setting section when a source changes, a project footprint changes, or a reviewer asks where a statement came from.

Hazards IX(d): start with the statutory list and the returned record

The Appendix G checklist asks whether the project would be located on a site included on a hazardous-materials list compiled under Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or environment. The question contains two linked parts. A list/source result is not itself a conclusion about the project’s hazard.

Start with Retain in the source record Do not infer
Government Code section 65962.5 Relevant subsection/list category, exact statutory source, and access date. That a statutory category alone confirms a particular parcel or project conclusion.
CalEPA’s section 65962.5(a) page Exact page/document title, source date if published, access date, and category described. That the page represents every list category or provides a parcel-level clearance result.
DTSC EnviroStor Exact configured service/record, record ID, publisher date/version if provided, query date, and matching/spatial method. That a returned or absent record resolves all hazardous-materials conditions or Initial Study significance.
State Water Board GeoTracker Exact configured service/record, record ID, publisher date/version if provided, query date, and matching/spatial method. That a returned or absent record resolves all hazardous-materials conditions or Initial Study significance.
A static list component, when used Publisher, title, revision or date not published, retrieved date, matched text, and matching rule. That a text/locality candidate is an APN match, footprint intersection, or site condition.

If a screen returns no record from one named source, say exactly that. A source-specific no-return result does not establish that a condition is absent. If a static source produces a text match, call it a locality candidate unless an authoritative parcel boundary/key supports a more specific statement.

Wildfire XX: start with location scope, then the four questions

Appendix G Section XX applies “[i]f located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones.” It asks whether the project would:

Use the current applicable Appendix G text as the controlling checklist source and confirm any lead-agency/local procedure that applies to the project. The checklist tells the analyst what to evaluate. It does not establish the necessary map, evacuation, slope, drainage, or project-design facts.

Source question First source record Follow-on review it does not replace
Is the project in or near an SRA or land classified as very high FHSZ? Office of the State Fire Marshal FHSZ page, exact SRA/LRA map/viewer/recommendation/local source, source effective/release date, query date, and project relationship. Meaning of “near,” project footprint, local designation/adoption, current site/project conditions.
Which LRA designation should be used? Relevant local-agency ordinance/map/source, plus the State Fire Marshal recommendation. Government Code section 51179 describes the local designation role. Treating SRA data as LRA coverage or treating an unverified recommendation as a local conclusion.
Could emergency/evacuation plans be impaired? The applicable adopted plan and current project access/egress facts. A map-only conclusion.
Could project design/infrastructure exacerbate fire risk? Project description, utilities/roads/fuel breaks/water sources as applicable, topography/wind/fuel sources, and agency/specialist record where needed. A zone label as a risk or impact conclusion.
Could post-fire conditions create relevant risks? Drainage, slope, geologic/hydrologic, and project-specific records as applicable. A fire-hazard designation as a landslide/flood conclusion.

Minimum evidence-card fields

A draft setting sentence should link back to a record with enough detail to recheck it:

Field Hazards IX(d) example Wildfire XX example
Question Appendix G Hazards IX(d) Appendix G Wildfire XX, applicable subquestion(s)
Authority Government Code section 65962.5 and Appendix G Appendix G; FHSZ/local designation authority as relevant
Source Exact publisher/program/layer/document Exact Office/local map, viewer, ordinance, plan, or record
Date Source version/effective/published date when available; separate query date Map effective/release/adoption date when available; separate query date
Method Query/match/search geometry and record ID Location/project relationship, source/map method, and local-status check
Returned fact What the source returned, without an impact conclusion What the source returned, without a project risk conclusion
Limit / next review Project relationship, record context, agency/specialist review “Near” scope, local designation, evacuation/project-design/post-fire review

Use date not published where a publisher does not state a source date. Do not label a source “current” because it was accessed today.

Draft only from the record you can cite

Once the source record is assembled, draft the setting statement from the cited facts. Keep the source sentence and the analyst’s conclusion separate. A source can report a listed record, a map designation, a local ordinance, or a plan. The analyst decides whether the fact applies to the project, whether the applicable Appendix G question is triggered, and how the record supports the final significance analysis.

If a fact is unavailable, write the limitation and the next verification action. An explicit not determinable from the queried sources state is preferable to a complete-sounding sentence without a record.

Continue the work

Use the public Cortese screen or FHSZ source record when the relevant tool is available. Open the cited official source before relying on a result. For a project-specific Initial Study, retain the project facts and agency/specialist review that connect a public record to the final analysis.

Sources and update record

Published 2026-09-09 · Last reviewed 2026-09-09. Review record.