Initial Study for Conditional Use Permit No. CUP09-006 Mid ...

Initial Study for

Conditional Use Permit No. CUP09-006 Mid Valley Agricultural Services

Livingston, California

Prepared for:

County of Merced 2222 M. Street

Merced, CA 95340 209.385.7654

Contact: James Holland, Senior Planner

Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates

2000 “O” Street, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95811

916.447.1100

Contact: Trevor Macenski, REA

March 4, 2010

County of Merced - Mid Valley Agricultural Services Project Initial Study Table of Contents

Michael Brandman Associates iii H:\Client (PN-JN)\1604\16040035\IS-MND\16040035 IS-MND Mid Valley 03-04-2010.doc

Table of Contents

Section 1: Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 - Purpose............................................................................................................... 1 1.2 - Project Location .................................................................................................. 1 1.3 - Project Description .............................................................................................. 1

Employees....................................................................................................... 2 Site Design and Required Safety Measures.................................................... 2 Tank Farm ....................................................................................................... 3 Fuel Island ....................................................................................................... 3 Water Supply ................................................................................................... 3 Stormwater ...................................................................................................... 3 Wastewater...................................................................................................... 4 Solid Waste ..................................................................................................... 4 Parking ............................................................................................................ 4 Traffic and Circulation...................................................................................... 5 Landscaping .................................................................................................... 6 Utilities and Services ....................................................................................... 6

1.4 - Project Objectives ............................................................................................... 7 1.5 - Summary of County and Agency Approvals ....................................................... 7

Air Quality ........................................................................................................ 8 Section 2: Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Environmental Evaluation..... 17

2.1 - Purpose and Legal Basis for the Initial Study ................................................... 17 2.2 - Checklist and Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ......................................... 17 2.3 - Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ...................................................... 18

1 - Aesthetics................................................................................................. 19 2 - Agricultural Resources ............................................................................. 23 3 - Air Quality................................................................................................. 30 4 - Biological Resources................................................................................ 37 5 - Cultural Resources................................................................................... 47 6 - Geology and Soils .................................................................................... 50 7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions.................................................................... 55 7 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................... 66 7-1 - Airports.................................................................................................. 71 7-2 - Hazardous Fire Area ............................................................................. 72 8 - Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................... 73 8-1 - Floodplains............................................................................................ 78 9 - Land Use and Planning ............................................................................ 80 10 - Mineral Resources ................................................................................. 83 11 - Noise ...................................................................................................... 85 12 - Population and Housing ......................................................................... 90 13 - Public Services....................................................................................... 92 14 - Recreation .............................................................................................. 94 15 - Transportation/Traffic ............................................................................. 95 16 - Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................... 100 17 - Mandatory Findings of Significance ..................................................... 104

Section 3: Environmental Determination........................................................................ 107 Section 4: Applicant’s Agreement to Mitigation ............................................................ 109 Section 5: References....................................................................................................... 113

County of Merced - Mid Valley Agricultural Services Project Table of Contents Initial Study

iv Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\1604\16040035\IS-MND\16040035 IS-MND Mid Valley 03-04-2010.doc

Appendix A: Agricultural Conflict Consultation Letter Appendix B: Air Quality Modeling Data Appendix C: Biological Resources Information

Attachment A: California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database

Attachment B: Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office, Species List Attachment C: CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants Attachment D: Special-Status Species Review Tables

Appendix D: Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement

List of Tables

Table 1: Monthly Truck Trip Distribution ................................................................................. 5 Table 2: Construction Emissions .......................................................................................... 34 Table 3: Special-Status Wildlife Species that may Occur within the Project Site.................. 43 Table 4: 2011 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................... 59 Table 5: Employees and Sales Staff Trip Generation........................................................... 60 Table 6: Truck Trip Generation ............................................................................................. 60 Table 7: Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions................................................................ 61 Table 8: Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions from State Regulations and AB32

Measures ............................................................................................................... 62 Table 9: Greenhouse Gas Emissions with Reductions from Regulations............................. 63 Table 10: Impervious Surfaces ............................................................................................. 74 Table 11: Land Uses and Zoning Designations of the Project Site and Surrounding

Areas...................................................................................................................... 81 Table 12: Merced County Ordinance Sound Level Limitations............................................. 86

County of Merced - Mid Valley Agricultural Services Project Initial Study Table of Contents

Michael Brandman Associates v H:\Client (PN-JN)\1604\16040035\IS-MND\16040035 IS-MND Mid Valley 03-04-2010.doc

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map............................................................................................ 9 Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map - Topographic Base ................................................................. 11 Exhibit 3: Local Vicinity Map - Aerial Base............................................................................ 13 Exhibit 4: Site Plan................................................................................................................ 15 Exhibit 5: Site Photographs................................................................................................... 21 Exhibit 6: Designated Farmland Map.................................................................................... 25 Exhibit 7: Williamson Act Map............................................................................................... 27 Exhibit 8: Recorded Occurrences of Special-Status Species within 5 Miles of the

Project Sites ........................................................................................................... 41

County of Merced - Mid Valley Agricultural Services Project Initial Study Introduction

Michael Brandman Associates 1 S:\Projects\16040035 Mid Valley Agricultural Services\ISMND\4 - Final ISMND\16040035 IS-MND Mid Valley 03-04-2010.doc

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 - Purpose

The purpose of this Initial Study (IS) is to identify the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction of the Mid Valley Agricultural Services (Conditional Use Permit No. CUP09-006) project and to describe measures that will avoid or mitigate impacts to a less than significant level. The IS includes information to substantiate the conclusions made regarding the potential of the proposed project to result in significant environmental impacts and provides the basis for input from public agencies, organizations, and interested members of the public. Pursuant to Section 15367 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Merced County is the Lead Agency for the proposed project and, as such, has primary responsibility for approval or denial of the proposed project.

1.2 - Project Location

The proposed project is located approximately two miles northeast of the City of Livingston and approximately one mile southwest of the community of Cressey, east of State Route 99 in Merced County, California (refer to Exhibit 1). The northwest corner of the project site is located at the intersection of Eucalyptus Avenue and Sultana Drive. The trapezoid shaped parcel (Assessors Parcel Number [APN] 143-040-001) encompasses 15.5 acres and is located in Section 20 of Township 6 South, Range 12 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian on the USGS 7.5-minute Cressey area map (refer to Exhibit 2).

Exhibit 3 provides an aerial perspective of the project site and surrounding areas and identifies the extent and location of the existing Mid Valley Agricultural Services facility and the proposed relocation. The project site currently consists of an almond orchard. As shown, land uses in the project site’s vicinity include the agricultural production of orchards and row crops, scattered rural residences, and agricultural processing facilities. Areas directly surrounding the project site include orchards to the north and east, a parcel used for agricultural implement storage to the south, and an almond hulling operation and the existing Mid Valley Agricultural Services facility to the west.

1.3 - Project Description

Mid Valley Agricultural Services of Livingston, California, proposes to relocate and construct a new 19,300 square feet of office, warehouse, and operations facilities at the southeast corner of Eucalyptus Avenue and Sultana Drive. The proposed facilities would replace Mid Valley Agricultural Services’ existing operation located 800 feet west of the proposed project’s site (Exhibit 3).

The 15.5 acre project site currently consists of an old almond orchard and is zoned General Agricultural (A-1). Construction of the proposed project would require the removal of the existing

County of Merced - Mid Valley Agricultural Services Project Introduction Initial Study

2 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\1604\16040035\IS-MND\16040035 IS-MND Mid Valley 03-04-2010.doc

almond orchard which is in poor health and scheduled to be removed regardless of project implementation (Kurosaki, pers. comm.). The project site is generally flat and would require minimal grading, with the majority of soil movement occurring at the proposed retention basin.

The proposed project would consist of two single-story buildings. The proposed site plan, included in Exhibit 4, shows the location of the two proposed buildings and associated infrastructure including the stormwater retention basin. The larger of the two buildings would consist of an 814-square-foot office and an attached 11,200-square-foot warehouse. The smaller building would consist of a 1,483.5-square-foot workshop. The office and warehouse building would be 20 feet, 1 inch in height while the workshop would be 27 feet, 4 inches in height.

Construction of the proposed facility would begin as early as January 2011 and be completed before December 2011. Upon project completion, Mid Valley Agricultural Services would move from their existing site, approximately 800 feet to the west, to the new facility. The old facility would likely be reused; however, the exact use is currently unknown. The proposed office space, warehouse and workshop, facilities would be used to store, sell and distribute agricultural fertilizers. This IS will evaluate the impacts of the proposed project to ensure they are properly addressed and analyzed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Employees Employees from the current facility would be transferred to the new facility. Accordingly, the proposed project is expected to employ a similar number of employees as the existing facility, including 20 full-time onsite employees, 3 part-time employees, and 12 outside sales staff. Increased sales over 10 years time would likely require the addition of 2 full-time employees and 3 outside sales staff.

Site Design and Required Safety Measures The proposed project would be required to adhere to all existing laws and regulations related to the construction and operation of the proposed facility. The proposed project is an industrial facility that would store and handle potentially hazardous chemicals such as pesticides and fertilizers. As such, the proposed project must be constructed and operated in compliance with Merced County’s hazardous materials codes and standards. These are enforced by administrative mechanisms such as audits, design reviews, and building inspections. The Merced County Public Health’s Environmental Health division is the local enforcement agency that requires a Hazardous Materials Business Plan which would provide details on the hazardous materials handled onsite and an emergency plan. As a part of this proposed project, the applicant would be required to provide an updated Hazardous Materials Business Plan. In addition, the proposed project would be constructed to meet the following applicable codes:

• API Recommended Practice 750: Management of Process Hazards and other API codes.


Michael Brandman Associates 3 H:\Client (PN-JN)\1604\16040035\IS-MND\16040035 IS-MND Mid Valley 03-04-2010.doc

• National Fire Prevention Association 30: Flammable and Combustion Liquids Code. This code sets minimum standards for the design and operation of equipment and facilities employed in the storage, handling, and processing of flammable and combustible liquids.

• International Building Code: These codes set standards for materials, design, and construction of buildings and associated structures. These codes are usually incorporated into local building regulations and carry the force of law.

Tank Farm As part of the proposed project, a small tank farm would be located onsite to accommodate larger volumes of agricultural chemicals. The tank farm would be located outdoors on a proper foundation to prevent moisture or debris from gathering at the base of the tanks. Inspection of the tanks would occur on a regular basis to ensure they are in proper working order and to prevent leaks (Kurosaki, pers. comm.). Given the cyclical nature of the proposed project, the tank farm would store different agricultural chemicals at different times of the year. Accordingly, the amount and type of chemicals contained onsite at any given time would be dependent on the time of year and current crop rotation of serviced agricultural lands. It is also important to note that no on-site bulk mixing or blending of agricultural chemicals is proposed as part of the project.

Fuel Island A private fuel island consisting of two fuel pumps and two 7,000-gallon fuel convaults would provide diesel and unleaded gasoline to Mid Valley Agricultural service vehicles. Diesel and unleaded gasoline would be delivered by a contracted fuel service on an as needed basis. The fuel convaults would be double walled and monitored, as required by the State of California, to prevent leaks and ground contamination.

Water Supply Potable water would be supplied to the proposed project via a well in the southeast corner of the project site. According to the submitted Conditional Use Permit application, the proposed project is expected to require an average of 432 gallons per day. A water tank would be located near the proposed well for use during fires and would be sized in accordance with Merced County fire safety regulations.

Stormwater According to information provided in the submitted Conditional Use Permit application, the proposed project is expected to create approximately 9,283 cubic feet of stormwater run-off in a 24-hour period during a 10-year storm. Stormwater would be directed to a retention basin located in the northwestern portion of the project site through surface flow, gutters, and drainage swales. The retention basin would be approximately 6 feet deep and sized appropriately to handle stormwater flows. The basin would be required to filter any residual chemical run-off from the facility to prevent



water contamination. Upon reaching the retention basin, water would be allowed to percolate back into the ground.

On occasion, water is used to rinse fertilizer storage and transportation equipment. Rinsing would occur in a contained area with a catch basin in order to capture all water used. Captured rinse water would be stored onsite and periodically removed for use as irrigation water at contracted agricultural operations in the central valley. The rinse water contains low levels of fertilizer and is therefore seen as a benefit to the agricultural crops receiving the irrigation water.

An irrigation drainage pipe currently extends through the middle of the project site in a north-south direction. This pipe would be removed from within the project site and capped at the future terminus (southern property line) prior to building construction.

Wastewater Wastewater produced at the project site would be directed to one of two proposed onsite septic systems. Approximately 389 gallons per day of wastewater is expected to be produced by the proposed project. The septic systems would be designed to conform to the requirements of Merced County’s Department of Public Health, Environmental Health division. The leach field for the office and warehouse would be designed to allow for 300 percent expansion. The shop building would have a leach field with a potential for expansion of 200 percent.

Solid Waste The proposed Mid Valley Agricultural Services facility is expected to produce 0.6 cubic yards of waste per day or 4.2 cubic yards per week. Dumpsters and recycling bins would be located in a trash storage enclosure north of the workshop. Solid waste would be removed from the site by Winton Disposal on a weekly basis.

Used motor oil, drained from delivery vehicles, would be stored onsite in 55-gallon barrels. The barrels would be stored in a metal containment area under an awning or in such a location that would prevent leaks and spills from entering the stormwater system. Evergreen Oil, Inc. would remove the used oil from the project site on a monthly basis for recycling.

Parking The proposed project would provide 107 parking spaces including 87 standard stalls, 15 1-ton stalls, and 5 large truck stalls. The 87 standard stalls would be located immediately north and to the east of the proposed office building, in order to provide parking for customers and employees and would include 6 compact stalls and 3 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant stalls. The 15 1-ton truck and 5 large-truck stalls would be located to the southwest of the warehouse. In addition, a large gravel area west of the shop and fuel island would be provided for trailer and equipment parking. Currently, Mid Valley Agriculture stores some trailers and equipment on customers’ property,



returning to the facility only for servicing. The proposed additional gravel storage area would allow Mid Valley Agriculture to store all of their equipment onsite.

Traffic and Circulation The proposed project would be accessed from Eucalyptus Avenue via three access points. The outer two access points would be dedicated in/out routes for 1-ton trucks. The middle access point would be limited to regular vehicular traffic. A street light would be provided at each access point. All proposed access points would provide adequate access to parking and project facilities and be constructed in conformance with the requirements of Merced County standards.

Traffic from project construction would result in approximately 250 trips made by trucks weighing 10 tons or more, including delivery of manufactured building components, concrete, construction equipment, and other miscellaneous construction materials. These truck trips would occur throughout the five to six month construction period. However, for the purposes of a conservative analysis, a 12-month construction period is assumed in this document. Additional construction traffic would be comprised mostly of light trucks (contractor trucks, personal vehicles, etc.) weighing less than five gross tons.

As part of the conditional use permit, the applicant has agreed to dedicate 10 feet of right-of-way for the length of the property adjoining Eucalyptus Avenue and Sultana Drive and a 50-foot radius return at the intersection of these two roads.

According to the project applicant, approximately 326 truck trips (consisting of 20,000 pounds or 5 axle trucks) currently access the existing Mid Valley Agricultural Services facility on an annual basis. Upon completion of the proposed project, these trips would be diverted to the new facility and would use the outer two access points for ingress and egress. Because the existing Mid Valley Agricultural Services Site would be reused for other purposes, and would likely generate similar truck trips, this Initial Study considers all truck trips to the proposed project site as new or additional. Furthermore, Mid Valley Agricultural Services expects to expand their gross sales revenue from $15 million to between $22 and $25 million after 10 years at the new location. This expansion is expected to result in 3 to 4 additional truck trips per week for the period from January through July. Table 1 depicts the monthly distribution of existing and expected future additional trips.

Table 1: Monthly Truck Trip Distribution

Truck Trips (20,000 lb or 5 axle trucks) Month Existing Additional

January 30 3-4

February 30 3-4

March 54 3-4

April 54 3-4



Table 1 (cont.): Monthly Truck Trip Distribution

Truck Trips (20,000 lb or 5 axle trucks) Month Existing Additional

May 54 3-4

June 30 3-4

July 23 3-4

August 15 0

September 12 0

October 8 0

November 8 0

December 8 0

Total 326 21-28

Source: Mid Valley Agricultural Services, 2009

Upon completion of the proposed project, approximately 20 full-time and 3 part-time employees would make daily trips to the site. Expected business growth, as described above, would eventually require the addition of approximately 2 full-time employees. Twelve outside sales staff would make trips to the project site between once a month and 2 times a day depending on their sales territory. Future business growth would likely require the addition of 3 outside sales staff. Overall, traffic would increase as sales increased, which would occur in incremental amounts in relation to the demand for agricultural chemicals.

Landscaping As shown in Exhibit 4, landscaping is proposed along the northern and western perimeter of the project site along Eucalyptus Avenue and Sultana Drive. This would reduce the visual impact of the proposed buildings and stormwater retention basin. Landscaping would also be installed along a portion of the proposed project’s eastern boundary and throughout the customer and employee parking areas. Additional landscaping may be required at the County’s discretion in order to reduce bare ground and reduce dust.

Utilities and Services The following agencies and private companies have been identified as providers of facilities and services for the project site:

Electricity and Gas........PG&E Fire Protection...............Merced County Fire Department Police Services..............Merced County Sheriff Solid Waste ...................Winton Disposal Telephone......................AT&T Water.............................On-site private well



1.4 - Project Objectives

Project objectives of the proposed Mid Valley Agricultural Services project are as follows:

1. Construct a new Mid Valley Agricultural Service’s agricultural pesticide and fertilizer distribution and sales facility and expand to include 19,300 square feet of new office, warehouse, and workshop facilities in the form of two single story buildings.

2. Continue to meet the increasing demands of regional farm operations by safely supplying agricultural pesticides and fertilizers.

3. Continue to support and serve the agricultural community and industry throughout California’s Central Valley.

1.5 - Summary of County and Agency Approvals

The project would require the following discretionary agency approvals for actions proposed as part of the project:

• Merced County - Adoption of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project.

• Merced County - Approval of the Conditional Use Permit. The project would require the following ministerial approvals for actions proposed as part of the project:

• Merced County Public Works - Approval of the Stormwater Drainage Plan and provision of an Encroachment Permit.

• Merced County Public Works - Building and Safety Division - Provision of Building Permit.

• Merced County Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Division - Approval of Hazardous Materials Business Plan.

• San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District - Dust Control Plan approval, Authority to Construct.

Air Quality The construction and operation of the proposed project would be subject to SJVAPCD rules and requirements, including any applicable permitting requirements. Compliance with the SJVAPCD’s Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions) during construction is required.

County of Merced - Mid Valley Agricultural Services Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation


SECTION 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION

2.1 - Purpose and Legal Basis for the Initial Study

As a public disclosure document, this IS provides local decision makers and the public with information regarding the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. According to Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of an IS is to:

1. Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative Declaration (ND).

2. Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for an ND.

3. Assist in the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by: a. Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant,

b. Identifying the effects determined not to be significant,

c. Explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be significant, and

d. Identifying whether a program EIR, tiering, or another appropriate process can be used for analysis of the project’s environmental effects.

4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project.

5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in an ND that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment.

6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs.

7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project. This IS evaluates the potential for the proposed project to result in environmental impacts, evaluates the significance of those impacts, and defines mitigation measures to avoid or reduce impacts to less than significant levels. The information provided in this IS will be used by the County to determine if an ND or an EIR is the appropriate level of CEQA documentation. The IS will also serve as a basis for soliciting comments and input from members of the public and public agencies.

2.2 - Checklist and Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

The Environmental Checklist included in this IS is based on the CEQA Environmental Checklist Form, included as Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, as augmented where applicable in accordance with Merced County’s CEQA Checklist. A description of the environmental setting and

Environmental Checklist and County of Merced - Mid Valley Agricultural Services Project Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study


an explanation for all checklist responses is included. Where appropriate, mitigation measures are identified to avoid or reduce the significance of a potential impact. In the checklist below the following definitions are used:

“No Impact” means that it is anticipated that the project would not affect the physical environment on or around the project site. It therefore does not warrant mitigation measures.

“Less than Significant Impact” means the project is anticipated to affect the physical environment but to a less than significant degree, and therefore mitigation measures are not necessary.

“Less than Significant with Mitigation” applies to impacts where the incorporation of mitigation measures into a project has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant” to “Less Than Significant.” In such cases, and with such projects, mitigation measures will be provided, including a brief explanation of how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.

“Potentially Significant Impact” means there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant, and no mitigation is possible.

2.3 - Environmental Factors Potentially Affected

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils

Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning

Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing

Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic

Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance None After Mitigation



1 - Aesthetics

Would the project:

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant

with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

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

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

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

e) Expose residential property to unacceptable light levels?

Checklist Evaluation

a) No Impact. The lands surrounding the project site have been highly modified for agricultural production and consist mostly of almond orchards. As a result, views in the project site vicinity generally consist of orchards, intermittent areas of row crops, scattered agricultural support buildings, and rural residences. There are no unique visual features or scenic vistas in the project area. No roadways in the project vicinity are designated as scenic under existing visual protection programs. Therefore, no impacts in this regard would occur.

b) No Impact. There are no officially designated State Scenic Highways or Routes in the project vicinity (Caltrans 2009). Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on scenic resources such as rock outcroppings, trees, or historic buildings within view from a scenic highway.

c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site currently consists of an almond orchard that is no longer producing at peak levels. Views from the project area consist of adjacent orchards and agricultural operation facilities. Nearby agricultural and industrial land uses contain visual elements such as overhead transmission lines, agricultural outbuildings, agricultural implements and traffic signs. Views surrounding the project site are limited due to the surrounding almond orchards. The dominant visual feature in the project site’s vicinity is the almond hulling and processing plant located immediately to the west of the project site. The processing plant consists of several buildings, exterior piping and tanks, and equipment storage areas. Refer to Exhibit 5 for photographs of the project site and surrounding areas.



Construction of the proposed project would establish 19,300 square feet of office, warehouse, and workshop space, and an area for exterior equipment storage. The office and warehouse building would be 20 feet, 1 inch in height while the workshop would be 27 feet, 4 inches in height. A large stormwater retention basin would be located in the northwest corner of the project site. Landscaping would be installed along the project site’s frontages with Sultana Drive and Eucalyptus Ave. While the change in land use from an almond orchard to an agricultural support facility would notably alter the visual character of the site, the proposed project would not differ substantially from adjacent agricultural support facilities and would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings. This impact is considered less than significant.

d) Less Than Significant Impact. New sources of nighttime lighting would be created in the form of exterior lighting on buildings and in storage yard areas. A county approved streetlight would be constructed at each of the proposed project’s access points (for a total of three new streetlights) in order to adequately light all driveways for safety purposes. Exterior lighting is already present in the project vicinity due to the almond hulling and processing plant located directly to the west. In addition, lighting located at surrounding residences also contributes to the area’s nighttime lighting. Project lighting would be required to meet Merced County’s lighting code (18.41.060), which requires the use of directional lighting and minimization of glare and reflections. As such, the proposed project’s contribution to existing sources would be minimal, and impacts to existing nighttime views would be less than significant.

e) Less Than Significant Impact. Exterior lighting included in the proposed project would not create unacceptable levels of light as discussed above under impact d). Furthermore, the two closest residences to the project site are 800 and 1,600 feet to the southeast and north, respectively. Substantial areas of orchards are located between the project site and the residences, which would block the majority of light emanating from the project site. A third residence is located more than 2,000 feet to the west on Eucalyptus drive, but would not be directly impacted by lighting at the project due to distance and the intervening location of the Livingston Farmers Association’s almond hulling facility. As previously mentioned above, proposed project lighting would be required to meet Merced County’s lighting code (18.41.060), which requires the use of directional lighting and minimization of glare and reflections. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.



2 - Agricultural Resources

Note: the California Department of Conservation’s Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model (1997) as implemented in the Merced County GIS LESA Model may be used to assess impacts on agriculture.

Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

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

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

d) Cause development of non-agricultural uses within 1,000 feet of agriculturally zoned property (Right-to-Farm)?


a) Less Than Significant Impact. Farming operations in the project area generally consist of almond orchards and other tree crops. A small amount of row crops are also present in the project’s vicinity. Based on a review of maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) of the California Resources Agency, the 15.5-acre project site is designated as “Prime Farmland” (refer to Exhibit 6). Prime Farmland has the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long-term agricultural production, including, but not limited to, soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields (California Department of Conservation 2009a). Land immediately to the north and east is also classified as Prime Farmland. Land to the west, which contains the existing Mid Valley Agricultural facility and the Livingston Farmers Association’s almond hulling operation, is designated as “Semi-Agricultural and Rural Commercial Land.” The Semi-Agricultural and Rural Commercial Land FMMP designation is used for lands that include uses such as farmsteads, agricultural storage and packing sheds, and unpaved parking areas. Land to the south of the project site is designated as “Farmland of Local Importance,” which is defined by the FMMP as farmlands that have physical characteristics that would qualify for Prime and Statewide Farmland designations except for the lack of irrigation water. The land to the south is currently not used for the production of agricultural products but is used periodically to store agricultural products, bins, and trucks.



Other FMMP designations located in the project’s vicinity include “Farmland of Statewide Importance.”

Although the proposed project would preclude any agricultural farming practices from occurring, the proposed facility is considered an agricultural commercial support operation, which is an allowed use under the current land use designation and zoning classification under the Merced County General Plan and Zoning Code, respectively. Furthermore, the proposed operation would lend additional support to the agricultural industry in not only Merced County, but also the Central Valley region and is specifically identified by the Merced County General Plan as being consistent with surrounding rural agricultural uses. In light of these factors, the conversion of approximately 15.5 acres of designated Prime Farmland to an agricultural commercial support operation is considered a less than significant impact.

b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not under Williamson Act contract. Approximately 98 parcels under Williamson Act contracts are located in the project vicinity (within a 2.5-mile-radius); however, those parcels account for only 21.8 percent of the total acreage located within a 2.5-mile-radius of the project site. As shown in Exhibit 7, the closest parcel under Williamson Act contract is located approximately 650 feet south of the project site (California Department of Conservation 2009b). Since the proposed project would be consistent with existing land use and zoning designations and supports agricultural operations, the proposed project is not expected to encourage the non-renewal or cancellation of other contracted lands. Impacts are therefore considered less than significant.

c) Less Than Significant Impact. Indirect impacts on agricultural lands can occur under two types of conditions: (1) development (urban, residential) can place pressure on adjacent agricultural lands to convert to non-agricultural uses; or (2) land uses (urban, residential) adjacent to existing agricultural lands can create conflicts between the two types of uses which can, in turn, lead to the abandonment of agricultural uses in the area of conflict.

This proposed project involves the construction of a 19,300 square foot facility for Mid Valley Agricultural Services. Upon completion, the proposed project would support agricultural production and commerce by providing fertilizer to the region. The proposed land use is consistent with both the General Plan land use and zoning designations. As such, the proposed project would not place pressure on adjacent agricultural lands to convert to nonagricultural uses or create a conflict between nearby land uses.



Furthermore, personnel from the University of California’s Agricultural and Natural Resources Cooperative Extension were asked to comment on the proposed project’s potential to negatively effect agricultural production in the area. The response letter, dated June 8, 2009, indicated that no significant negative affects on agricultural production were apparent. The letter did indicate that fugitive dust should be minimized and that stormwater should be contained onsite in order to ensure adjacent agricultural lands are not negatively affected. Compliance with San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (SJVAPCD) Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions) would reduce impacts related to dust. Construction of the stormwater retention basin and implementation of MM-Hydrology-1 would ensure that impacts related to stormwater would be minimized.

Accordingly, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

d) Less Than Significant Impact. Merced County’s Right-To-Farm Ordinance No. 1213 requires that conflicts between residential and agricultural land uses be reduced through an understanding of applied agricultural practices by urban dwellers. However, the proposed project does not propose the construction of any residences; therefore, the Right-to-Farm ordinance does not apply.

Because the proposed project supports local agricultural practices and does not include residential development, the likelihood of the proposed project to cause the development of non-agricultural uses is very low. As such, the proposed project would not be expected to negatively affect adjacent agriculturally-zoned property and impacts are considered less than significant.



3 - Air Quality

Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

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

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)?

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

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

f) Involve the construction of a sensitive receptor located within one mile of an existing substantial point source emitter?

Environmental Setting

The proposed project is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). Regional and local air quality in the SJVAB is impacted by topography, dominant airflows, atmospheric inversions, location, and season.

The SJVAB is generally shaped like a bowl; it is open in the north and is surrounded by mountain ranges on all other sides. Airflow in the SJVAB is primarily influenced by marine air that enters the northern portion of the SJVAB where the Delta empties into San Francisco Bay. The wind generally flows south-southeast through the valley, through the Tehachapi Pass and into the Southeast Desert Air Basin portion of Kern County. As the wind moves through the SJVAB, it mixes with the air pollution generated locally, generally transporting air pollutants from the north to the south in the summer with a reverse (south to north) flow in the winter (SJVAPCD 2006).

In general, air temperature decreases with distance from the earth’s surface, creating a gradient with warmer air located nearer the ground and cooler air located at higher elevations. Under normal circumstances, the air close to the earth warms as it absorbs surface heat and begins to rise. Winds occur when cooler air rushes in to take the place of the rising warm air. The wind and upward movement of air causes “mixing” in the atmosphere and can carry away or dilute pollution. Inversions occur when, at elevation, warm air sits over cooler air, trapping the cooler air beneath the



inversion. These inversions trap pollutants and prevent them from dispersing vertically; similarly, the surrounding mountains trap the pollutants and prevent them from dispersing horizontally.

The topography of the SJVAB restricts air movement through and out of the basin. The topography and the presence of inversion layers generally prevent dispersion of air pollutants. As a result, the SJVAB is highly susceptible to pollutant accumulation over time (SJVAPCD 2002).

The pollutants of concern for the SJVAB, primarily ozone and particulate matter (PM), are seasonal in nature. Significant ozone formation generally requires an adequate amount of ozone precursors in the atmosphere and several hours in a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight. Ozone precursors are primarily oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and reactive organic gases (ROG). The conditions for ozone formation are prevalent during the summer when thermal inversions are most likely to occur. PM levels tend to be highest during the winter months when the meteorological conditions favor the accumulation of localized pollutants. This occurs when relatively low inversion levels trap pollutants near the ground and concentrate the pollution. In addition, carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations are higher in winter.

In Merced County, on-road vehicles contribute the majority of CO and NOX emissions. ROG is primarily generated by farming operations and on-road motor vehicles in the County. Dust from open areas, agricultural operations, and unpaved roads account for most of the area’s PM (ARB 2008).

Checklist Evaluation Thresholds of Significance The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) has established thresholds of significance for construction impacts, project operations, and cumulative impacts. The SJVAPCD’s Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) contains significance criteria for evaluating operational-phase emissions from direct and indirect sources associated with a project. Indirect sources include motor vehicle traffic associated with the proposed project and do not include stationary sources covered under permit with the SJVAPCD. For this evaluation, the proposed project would be considered to have a significant effect on the environment if it would exceed the following thresholds:

• Cause an increase in pollutant emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) or oxides of nitrogen (NOX) exceeding 10 tons per year.

• Cause an increase in pollutant emissions of PM10 microns or less (PM10) exceeding 15 tons per year.

• Cause a violation of state carbon monoxide (CO) concentration standards. Although the GAMAQI does not recommend PM10 quantification from construction or operation, a threshold of 15 tons per year is used in this analysis to gauge potential PM10-related impacts. The



proposed PM10 threshold is consistent with the GAMAQI’s NOX and ROG thresholds, which are based on the SJVAPCD’s New and Modified Stationary Source Review offsets threshold.

a) Less Than Significant Impact. The SJVAB is designated nonattainment of state and Federal health based air quality standards for ozone and PM2.5. The SJVAB is designated nonattainment of state PM10. To meet Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements, the SJVAPCD has multiple air quality attainment plan (AQAP) documents, including:

• Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan (EOADP) for attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard (2004);

• 2007 Ozone Plan for attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard ;

• 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation; and,

• 2008 PM2.5 Plan.

The SJVAPCD’s AQAPs account for projections of population growth and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) provided by the Council of Governments (COG) in the SJVAB and identify strategies to bring regional emissions into compliance with federal and State air quality standards. Because population growth and VMT projections are the basis of the AQAPs’ strategies, a project would conflict with the plans if it results in more growth or VMT than the plans’ projections. The primary way of determining if a project would result in more growth or vehicle miles traveled than in the AQAPs is to determine consistency with the applicable General Plan.

Growth estimates used in a General Plan often come from the State of California’s Department of Finance. The regional COG then uses the growth projections and land use information in adopted general plans to estimate future average daily trips and VMT, which is then provided to the SJVAPCD to estimate future emissions in an AQAP. It is assumed that the existing and future pollutant emissions computed in the AQAPs were based on land uses from area general plans that were prepared prior to the AQAP’s adoption.

The applicable General Plan for the proposed project is the Merced County 2000 General Plan (General Plan) that was adopted in 1990, prior to the SJVAPCD’s adoption of the applicable AQAPs. Therefore, if the proposed project’s population growth and VMT are consistent with the General Plan, then the proposed project is consistent with the growth assumptions used in the applicable AQAPs. This proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and would not require a general plan amendment. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the applicable AQAPs.

b) Less Than Significant Impact. There are two pollutants of concern for this impact: CO and PM10. Localized high levels of CO are associated with traffic congestion and idling or slow-



moving vehicles. The SJVAPCD provides screening criteria to determine when to quantify local CO concentrations based on impacts to the level of service (LOS) of roadways in the project vicinity.

This proposed project would construct 19,300 square feet of office, warehouse, and operations facilities and relocate the existing Mid Valley Agricultural Services business. Construction of the proposed project would result in minor increased operational activity from the 326 (round trip) existing truck trips by 21 to 28 additional truck trips (round trip) annually at the project site. However, the proposed project incorporates site access features that would ensure minimal traffic disruptions (refer to Section 15 Transportation/Traffic). On-road passenger car trips from employee and sales staff vehicle trips would increase with the addition of 5 employees.

The proposed project would not significantly affect the LOS of nearby roadways and intersections. Therefore, queuing would not be affected and additional CO analysis is not warranted.

The proposed project would comply with the SJVAPCD’s Regulation VIII dust control requirements during construction. Compliance with this regulation would reduce the potential for significant localized PM10 impacts to less than significant levels.

The proposed project would not result in localized CO hotspots or PM10 impacts. The proposed project would not violate an air quality standard or contribute to a violation of an air quality standard in the project area.

c) Less Than Significant Impact. The regional pollutants of concern are ozone precursors and PM10. Ozone is a regional pollutant, and the proposed project’s incremental increase in ozone precursor generation is used to determine the potential air quality impacts as set forth in the GAMAQI. Construction and operational emissions were prepared using URBEMIS v9.2.4 (URBEMIS).

Short-Term Construction-Related Impacts Major sources of emissions during construction include exhaust generated from the use of heavy equipment and on-road vehicles and fugitive dust generated as a result of soil disturbance during grubbing/land clearing, excavation, and grading activities.

The proposed project was assumed to start construction in January 2011 and be completed by December 2011. Although construction is estimated to take approximately 5 to 6 months to complete, a 12-month construction schedule was assumed for conservative purposes. Five phases of construction are anticipated including: grubbing/land clearing, site grading, paving, building construction, and architectural coating. Due to URBEMIS naming conventions, the grubbing/land clearing was designated as Mass Site Grading as shown in the URBEMIS



outputs provided in Appendix B. The entire 15.5 acres was assumed to be graded. Default URBEMIS construction equipment and quantities were assumed with the exception of the grubbing/land clearing phase where an additional excavator and tractor/loader were added to the fleet mix. In addition, per the County application, it was assumed that there would be up to 3,000 cubic yards of cut and fill during construction. Finally, the fugitive dust controls requirements of SJVAPCD Regulation VIII were not incorporated in the analysis. Compliance with Regulation VIII would further reduce the construction-generated PM10 emissions. As shown in Table 2, construction-generated ROG, NOX and PM10 would be less than the SJVAPCD’s significance thresholds.

Table 2: Construction Emissions

Emissions (Tons) Construction Phase ROG NOX PM10

Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.02 0.19 0.51

Fine Grading 0.04 0.36 1.07

Asphalt 0.02 0.12 0.01

Building 0.38 1.76 0.13

Architectural Coating 0.21 0.00 0.01

Total 0.68 2.42 1.72

Threshold 10 10 15

Exceed Threshold? NO NO NO

Source: MBA, 2009

Long-Term Operation-Related Impacts Operational, or long-term, emissions occur over the life of the proposed project. Operational emissions include mobile and area source emissions. Area source emissions are from consumer products, heaters that consume natural gas, gasoline-powered landscape equipment, and architectural coatings (painting). Mobile emissions are from motor vehicles.

Mid Valley Agricultural Services proposes to construct new facilities at the southeast corner of Eucalyptus Avenue and Sultana Drive and relocate the entirety of their operations to the new facilities.

The existing facility would not be demolished. The re-use of the existing facility is currently unknown; however, it is anticipated that the adjacent almond hulling facility, owner of the existing Mid Valley Agricultural Services site, would re-appropriate the facility to their operations. There is low confidence in the type and intensity of re-use of the existing facility, and more importantly, the re-use of the existing facility is not a component of this proposed project. Therefore, for the purposes of this project, it is assumed that reuse of the existing facility would be of similar intensity as the existing operations of Mid Valley Agricultural



Services. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an increase of operational emissions from a future re-use of the existing building, and further emissions analyses are not warranted. The analysis focuses on the operational emissions associated with the use of the proposed Mid Valley Agricultural Services facilities.

The proposed project would construct 19,300 square feet of industrial buildings, far less than the 510,000 square foot Small Project Analysis Level (SPAL) threshold for general light industry recommended by the SJVAPCD in assessing operational emissions significance. The proposed project would be approximately 4 percent of the SPAL threshold for general light industrial land uses. As stated in the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI:

The SJVAPCD pre-calculated the emission on a large number and types of projects to identify the level at which they have no possibility of exceeding the (operational) emissions thresholds….Projects falling under these size thresholds qualify for what the SJVPACD refers to a s the Small Project Analysis Level (SPAL). No quantification of ozone precursor emissions is needed for projects less than or equal to the sizes listed, however, other factors, such as toxic air contaminants, hazardous materials, asbestos, and odors still need to be analyzed.

Per the SJVAPCD’s guidance, operational emissions of the proposed project were not quantified, and are assumed to be less than the regional emissions thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed the SJVAPCD’s thresholds of significance for operational ROG, NOX, or PM10.

Short-term and long-term air quality impacts associated with the proposed project are less than significant. The proposed project will not violate an air quality standard or contribute to a violation of an air quality standard in the project area.

d) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction equipment generates diesel particulate matter (DPM), identified as a carcinogen by the ARB. The State of California has determined that DPM from diesel-fueled engines poses a chronic health risk with chronic (long-term) inhalation exposure. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) recommends using a 70-year exposure duration for determining residential cancer risks. Because of the project size and short duration, it is highly unlikely that the construction would pose a toxic risk to nearby residents.

The proposed project involves the construction of a 19,300 square foot facility for Mid Valley Agricultural Services, replacing their current facility located 800 feet to the west. The project would transport, store, and sell hazardous materials including fertilizers, fungicides, insecticides, and herbicides. The project would also include underground storage tanks for diesel and gasoline to be used by delivery vehicles. The delivery trucks would be a source of DPM.



The proposed project would comply with applicable regulations to reduce the risk of exposure from on-site chemicals (refer to Section 7 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials for further details).

Areas directly surrounding the project site include orchards to the north and east, and a parcel used for agricultural implement storage to the south, and an almond hulling operation and the existing Mid Valley Agricultural Services facility to the west. These land uses are not considered sensitive receptors. Furthermore, the ARB On-Road In-Use Truck and Bus Regulation would be in effect by the operational year and would further reduce the impacts of DPM generated by delivery vehicles.

e) Less Than Significant Impact. Areas directly surrounding the project site do not include substantial populations that would be exposed to odor sources. Surrounding land uses include orchards to the north and east, and a parcel used for agricultural implement storage to the south, and an almond hulling operation and the existing Mid Valley Agricultural Services facility to the west. The only potential odors associated with the proposed project would be from diesel exhaust and the application of paint during the construction period and from the diesel exhaust from delivery vehicles. These odors, if perceptible, are common in the environment, would dissipate rapidly as they mix with the surrounding air, and would be of very limited duration. Therefore, any potential odor impacts would be considered less than significant.

f) No Impact. The proposed project does not involve the construction of a sensitive receptor. Therefore, the proposed project would not construct a sensitive receptor within one mile of an existing substantial point source emitter.



4 - Biological Resources

Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


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?

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?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

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

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

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?


The project site is located in Merced County, California, northeast of Livingston, at the southeast corner of the intersection of Sultana Drive and Eucalyptus Avenue. The site is bordered on the north by Eucalyptus Avenue, on the west by Sultana Drive, on the east by almond orchard, and on the south by an unvegetated area currently used to store almonds and agricultural equipment. Elevation of the project site is between 147 and 150 feet above mean sea level (msl). Average temperatures range from January lows of 36 ˚F to July highs of 97.2 ˚F. Average annual precipitation is approximately



12.25 inches; precipitation falls primarily as rain with most precipitation occurring between the months of November and April (Western Regional Climate Center 2009).

The topography of the project site is mostly level, ranging from 147 to 150 feet above mean sea level (msl). The NRCS Web Soil Survey indicates that soils on the site are mapped as Delhi loamy sand, silty substratum, 0 to 3 percent slopes (DeA). Parent material is wind modified sandy alluvium derived from granite, drainage class is somewhat excessively drained, and depth to restrictive feature is more than 80 inches (Soil Survey Staff undated).

Methodology

MBA biologist/botanist Deborah Stout conducted the field assessment on October 16, 2009. The project site was surveyed by walking meandering transects. The assessment included describing the wildlife habitat present (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988); identifying common plant and wildlife species observed; determining the potential presence of any special habitat features, such as waters of the U.S. or state, including wetlands; and identifying any linkages within the project site to important adjacent wildlife habitats. Habitat types were evaluated for their potential to support special-status plant and wildlife species and any other sensitive biological resources.

Prior to conducting the field survey of the project site, the following information sources were reviewed:

• The Cressey, California USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (1987);

• Aerial photography of the project site (Google Earth undated);

• A Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soils map of the project site (Soil Survey Staff undated);

• California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) records for the Atwater, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle and the surrounding eight quandrangles (CNDDB 2009) (Appendix C, Attachment A);

• CDFG California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System (CWHR) (CDFG 2005);

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of endangered and threatened species that may occur, or be affected by the project, in the Cressey, California quadrangle (USFWS 2008) (Appendix C, Attachment B);

• The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2009) (Appendix C, Attachment C);

• Pertinent literature including the Jepson Manual, Higher Plants of California (Hickman 1993); Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California (Jennings and Hayes 1994); California Birds: Their Status and Distribution (Small 1994); California Bird Species of



Special Concern (Shuford and Gardali, eds. 2008); and Mammalian Species of Special Concern in California (Williams 1986).

Results Vegetation Communities The project site is an old almond orchard. Soils are extremely sandy and, in addition to the almond trees, supports only a very few, scattered herbs. According to the Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988), the habitat is classified as Orchard.

Special-Status Species

For the purposes of this analysis, special-status species are those species:

• Listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and those species formally proposed or candidates for listing;

• Listed as threatened or endangered under California ESA (CESA) or candidates for listing;

• Designated as endangered or rare pursuant to California Fish and Game Code (§1901);

• Designated as fully protected pursuant to California Fish and Game Code (§3511, §4700, §5050);

• Designated as a species of special concern by CDFG;

• Plants listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act or considered by CNPS as List 1A, 1B, or 2 species.

Special-Status Plant Species The special-status plant species reviewed in this document are listed in a table provided in Appendix C, Attachment D. This list was compiled based upon query results from CNDDB and the CNPS on-line inventory, as well as a list obtained from USFWS.

Several regionally occurring species do not have the potential to occur within the project site either because the distribution of the species does not extend into the project area, or because the habitat and/or microsite conditions (e.g., serpentine soils, mesic sites) required by the species are not present.

Based upon results of the species review, there are no special-status plant species with potential to occur within the project site. Recorded occurrences of special-status plant species within five miles of the project site are shown in Exhibit 8.

Special-Status Wildlife Species The special-status wildlife species considered for review in this document are included in a table provided in Appendix C, Attachment D. This list was compiled based on the USFWS list and query results from CNDDB and CWHR. CWHR is a predictive model that lists species likely to occur in a



given location under certain habitat conditions. It also predicts the suitability of those conditions for reproduction, cover, and feeding for each modeled species. Information fed into the model for the proposed project includes location (Merced County) and habitat type (orchard). CWHR does not include any information on plants, fish, invertebrates, or rare natural communities.

Several regionally occurring species do not have potential to occur within the project site, either because the distribution of the species does not extend into the project area, or because the habitat or habitat elements (e.g., caves, tall snags) required by the species are not present.

Based upon results of the species review, there are two special-status wildlife species with at least a low potential to occur within the project site: pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) and hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus). Table 3, (on the following page) summarizes these species’ habitat requirements, life history, and regulatory status. Recorded occurrences of special-status wildlife species within five miles of the project site are shown in Exhibit 5.



Table 3: Special-Status Wildlife Species that may Occur within the Project Site

Scientific Name Common name

Listing Status* USFWS/

CDFG/WBWG General Habitat Description Potential for Impacts**

Invertebrates

Antrozous pallidus Pallid bat

—/CSC/High Broadly distributed in California from sea level to over 6,000 feet. Roosts in caves, buildings, rock crevices, and tree hollows. Overwinters in summer habitats at lower elevations.

Low. Damaged trees may be suitable for roosting. There are no recorded occurrences of this species within 5 miles of the project site (CNDDB 2009).

Lasiurus cinereus Hoary bat

—/—/Medium Solitary foliage-roosting species. Winters along the coast and in southern California; breeds inland and north of wintering range. Breeding habitats include all woodlands and forests with medium to large-size trees and dense foliage.

Low. Trees on the site may be suitable for roosting. There are no recorded occurrences of this species within 5 miles of the project site (CNDDB 2009).

*Status Codes:

Federal FE = Federally Endangered FT = Federally Threatened FD = Federally Delisted

State CE = State Endangered CT = State Threatened SSC = State Species of Special Concern

WBWG High = Species imperiled or at high risk of imperilment. Medium = Lack of information prevents assessment of status and should be considered a threat.

**Potential for Impacts if Present

High = Species was observed, or suitable habitat is present and the species has been recorded recently within or adjacent to the project site. Medium = Species is locally common and suitable habitat is present. Low = Habitat is marginal, or suitable habitat is present but species is rare or locally uncommon. Very Low = Habitat is poor and species is very rare and has not been recorded within 5 miles of the project site. None = Habitat is absent or the project site is not within the range of the species.

Consistency with the Merced County General Plan

The Merced County General Plan (General Plan) contains several policies that recognize the need to identify and protect sensitive natural resources. The Open Space/Conservation chapter of the General Plan has in place goals, objectives, and policies for maintaining and enhancing habitat and biodiversity within the County that include:

Goal 1: Habitats which support rare, endangered, or threatened species are not substantially degraded.



Objective 1.A: Rare and endangered species are protected from urban development and are recognized in rural areas.

Policy 2: Continue to regulate the location, density, and design of development to minimize adverse impacts and encourage enhancement of rare and endangered species habitats.

Policy 3: The redesignation of land from a rural to an urban designation should occur in careful consideration of the potential impact on significant habitats and conformance with the Open Space Action Plan.

Policy 5: Urban uses which could result in significant loss of sensitive habitat should be directed to less sensitive wetland, wildlife, and vegetation habitat areas if possible.


a) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Project construction may impact nesting songbirds and roosting bats should they be present and should construction occur during the nesting season (generally March 1 through September 1). Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-Biology-1 would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Although the project site is not suitable for San Joaquin kit fox due to the presence of orchards, construction of the proposed project may impact this species should individuals traverse the site or seek temporary shelter. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-Biology-2 would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure

MM-Biology-1. Tree removal shall occur outside of the nesting season (September 1 through February 28). If trees must be removed during the nesting season (March 1 through September 1), preconstruction surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted within 250 feet of the project site. Surveys shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to initiation of construction. If active nests are located, construction shall be halted until a fledging has occurred as determined by a qualified biologist. Alternatively, CDFG may be consulted to determine if project construction is likely to impact nesting individuals and if construction may proceed. If construction proceeds, CDFG may require additional mitigation, including the presence of a biological monitor to ensure that construction does not result in nest abandonment.

MM-Biology-2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, and no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to ground disturbance or commencement of construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct a protocol level survey to determine the presence of the San Joaquin kit fox. In the event that this



species is detected during protocol-level surveys, consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) shall be required to discuss how to implement the project and avoid “take.” If “take” cannot be avoided, acquisition of a State Incidental Take Permit and corresponding federal take permit will be required prior to project implementation. If the survey identifies potential dens (defined as burrows at least four inches in diameter that open up within two feet), potential den entrances shall be dusted for three calendar days to register track of any San Joaquin kit fox present. If no San Joaquin kit fox activity is identified, potential dens may be destroyed.

If San Joaquin kit fox activity is identified, then dens shall be monitored to determine if occupation is by an adult fox only or is a natal den (natal dens usually have multiple openings). If the den is occupied by an adult only, the den may be destroyed when the adult fox has moved or is temporarily absent. If the den is a natal den, in coordination with the USFWS, a buffer zone of 250-feet shall be maintained around the den until the biologist determines that the den has been vacated. Where San Joaquin kit fox is identified, the provisions of the USFWS’s published Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (June 1999) shall apply (except that preconstruction survey protocols shall remain as established in this paragraph). These standards include provisions for educating construction workers regarding the kit fox, keeping heavy equipment operating at safe speeds, checking construction pipes for kit fox occupation during construction, and similar low or no-cost activities.

b) No Impact. The project site is a mature almond orchard. There are no riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities located within the project site. As such, construction of the proposed project would not impact any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community.

c) No Impact. There are no federally jurisdictional features within or adjacent to the project site.

d) No Impact. The project site has no aquatic habitat that can support native resident or migratory fish species. It is not located within any identified wildlife movement corridor and does not function as a wildlife nursery site. Surrounding land uses are agricultural fields supporting either row crops or orchards, with some industrial to the west. There would be no impact to any movement of wildlife or fish species.



e) No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with any of the Merced County General Plan goals or policies listed above. The proposed project would not affect the regulation of development or the redesignation of land within the County and would not result in the loss of sensitive wildlife habitat. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.

f) No Impact. The project site is not located within the boundaries of any Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or any other local, regional or state conservation plan.



5 - Cultural Resources

Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CCR15064.5?

b) Alter or destroy a historic site?

c) Alter or destroy an archaeological site.

d) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Section 15064.5?

e) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

f) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area?

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

Environmental Setting Record Search To determine the presence of cultural and historical resources within the project site and vicinity, staff at the Central California Information Center (CCIC) conducted a record search that included a review of National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, the California Inventory of Historic Resources, the California Historical Landmarks and the California Points of Historical Interest Listing. The record search was conducted not only for the project area but also for a 0.25-mile radius from the project boundary. The CCIC results (File# 7527 I) were received by MBA on October 5, 2009. The record search results indicate that no prehistoric or historic resources have been recorded within the project area or a 0.25-mile radius. Two previous investigations (CCIC Report #ME-2972 in 1976, and CCIC Report # ME-3093 in 1997) have been conducted within the 0.25-mile radius of the project area. One of the investigations (Report #ME-2972) was conducted along Eucalyptus Avenue, which is the northern project boundary. Both investigations were conducted for the Proposed Merced Irrigation, Atwater-Merced 115-kV Loop project.

The project area does not contain features such as watercourses, springs, ponds or elevated ground such as ridges and knolls that are typically considered archaeologically sensitive areas. However, the Livingston Canal is located within 0.25-mile to the north of the project site, and has been recorded at Almond Road, Shaffer, Road, and Bird Road (at Hammat Lateral Canal), but has not been recorded within the 0.25-mile search radius for the project area. In addition, the Wakefield Lateral Canal is



within the 0.25-mile search radius, but has not been formally recorded and is not shown in the Historic Property Data File.


a) No Impact. The record search and field survey conducted for the proposed project indicated that there are no structures within the proposed project area and no historical resources have been previously recorded within 0.25 mile. The proposed project would not result in any alterations or impacts to any portion of the Livingston or Wakefield Canal. As such, no impacts to known historical resources would occur.

b) No Impact. As discussed in checklist question (a), no historical sites have been identified within the project area.

c) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Two previous site investigations have been conducted within a 0.25-mile radius of the project site. The record search results indicate that no archaeological resources exist within the project area or within a 0.25-mile radius. However, buried archaeological resources such as prehistoric midden deposits, flaked and ground stone artifacts, bone, shell, and other cultural materials could be uncovered during excavation, grading, and other construction-related activities. Damage to significant buried archaeological resources would be minimized through implementation of the following mitigation measure that would reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure

MM-Cultural-1. If potentially significant archaeological resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of the proposed project, all work within 100 feet of the find shall stop until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find, and, if necessary, develop appropriate mitigation measures in consultation with Merced County and other appropriate agencies and individuals. If significant resources are discovered, a formal evaluation using CEQA criteria will be conducted to determine if further study, test excavations, or data recovery procedures are necessary.

d) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The site does not contain features such as watercourses, springs, ponds, or elevated ground such as ridges and knolls that are typically considered archaeologically sensitive. Although this area is not a location that is expected to contain archaeological resources, there is always the possibility that previously unknown resources could be uncovered during site preparation and grading. Buried archaeological resources could be damaged during excavation, grading, and other construction related activities. Damage to significant buried archaeological resources would



be minimized through implementation of the MM-Cultural-1. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level.

e) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Human remains are not known to exist within the project area. In the event that human remains are discovered on the project site, implementation of the following mitigation measure would insure impacts are reduced to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure

MM-Cultural-2. In the event that human remains are discovered on the project site, all project-related construction shall cease within a 100-foot radius of the remains. Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California, the following shall occur:

The Merced County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, s/he shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours and the NAHC will attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to this State law, then the landowner shall re-inter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance.

f) No Impact. The project site is not currently used in conjunction with any religious ceremonies. For this reason, no impact to religious or sacred uses would occur.

g) No Impact. The project site was formed by the deposition of granitic soil materials derived from the Sierra Nevada. This type of depositional environment generally does not present favorable conditions for the discovery of paleontological resources. In this context, the proposed project would not result in impacts to paleontological resources or unique geologic features.



6 - Geology and Soils

Where indicated, the appropriate Land Use Suitability Rating(s) has (have) been checked. Potentially

Significant Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Would the project expose people or structures to potentially 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?

ii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction

iii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

b) 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, collapse, or rockfall hazards?

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 ground subsidence?

d) Such as seiche, mudflow or volcanic hazard?

e) Change topography or ground surface relief features?

f) Create, cut, or fill slopes greater than 2:1 or higher than 10 feet?

g) Result in grading that affects or negates subsurface sewage disposal systems?

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

i) 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?

j) Change deposition, siltation or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of a lake?

k) Result in any increase in water erosion either on- or off-site?

l) Be impacted by or result in an increase in wind erosion and blow sand, either on-or off-site?




a.i) No Impact. The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. According to the Fault Activity Map of California (Jennings 1994), the nearest faults to the project site are the Bear Mountain Fault Zone and the Ortigalita Fault Zone, located approximately 20 miles northeast and 50 miles southwest of the project site, respectively. Other faults with historic displacement (activity within the last 200 years) are the Calaveras and San Andreas faults, which are both located west of Merced County. The Ortigalita fault is the only fault known in Merced County and is located in the western quarter of Merced County, dissecting the Coast Ranges in a northwesterly direction. This fault has not been active in historic times. The distance from the nearest active fault precludes the possibility of fault rupture on the project site. No impacts in this regard would occur.

a.ii) Less Than Significant Impact. Although no specific liquefaction hazard areas have been identified in Merced County, the potential for liquefaction is recognized throughout the San Joaquin Valley, where unconsolidated sediments and a high water table coincide. The General Plan identifies that liquefaction hazards may exist in wetland areas, which extend from the San Joaquin River west to the Southern Pacific Railroad and east toward State Highways 99 and 59 south. The project site is not located within this identified area. Regardless, construction of the proposed project would comply with seismic design requirements for Seismic Zone 3. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant.

a.iii) Less Than Significant Impact. All of California, including the project site, is subject to earthquake risks. The project site is located within an area designated as ‘moderate severity, moderate probable damage’ by the Merced County General Plan’s Maximum Expectable Earthquake Intensity map.

Based on probabilistic seismic hazard assessment maps produced by the State, the peak ground acceleration (PGA) for the project site, based on a 10 percent exceedance in 50 years, could range between 0.207 PGA to 0.272 PGA (CGS 2009). This level of seismic shaking is less than that of areas along the coast, which are expected to experience a much higher PGA. The proposed project would comply with California seismic design requirements, which would ensure that development of the project site would not expose persons or property to strong seismic ground shaking hazards. Impacts in this regard would therefore be less than significant.

b) No Impact. Slope failures, commonly referred to as landslides, include many phenomena that involve the down slope displacement and movement of material, either triggered by static (i.e., gravity) or dynamic (i.e., earthquake) forces. The project site is underlain by natural alluvial deposits of Holocene age and there are no known unstable geologic units or soils (e.g., artificial fill) present on the project site. The project site and surrounding parcels contain naturally flat relief, which precludes the possibility of landslides onsite. The



proposed project would also comply with all building code requirements including those pertaining to excavations, grading, and foundations. No impacts in this regard would occur.

c) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project area is located in the San Joaquin Valley, which is a broad alluvial plain lying between the Sierra Nevada foothills and the Coastal Range. The project site is situated on sandy soils originating from alluvial materials derived from granite. Based on the topography site plan prepared by R. B. Welty & Associates, elevations within the project site range from between 147 to 150 feet above mean sea level (msl).

According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service’s Web Soil Survey data based on the Merced Area soil survey, the project site is underlain by Delhi loamy sand, silty substratum, 0 to 3 percent slope (DeA) (USDA 2009a). Soil parent material consists of wind modified sandy alluvium derived from granite. The soil is somewhat excessively drained, and the depth to a restrictive feature is more than 80 inches. Delhi loamy sand, silty substratum is not listed as a hydric soil in the Merced County Hydric Soils List (USDA 2009b).

To ensure that factors such as soil and geologic stability (including subsidence) are taken into consideration during project planning and design, Merced County has adopted by reference the International Building Code, which sets appropriate standards for the design and siting of building. However, as mandated by Merced County, pursuant to Merced County Code 16.08.040(C), any new construction stared after January 1, 2008 must complete a soils report to be reviewed by the project engineer. Completion of a soils report by a qualified California licensed soils engineer would ensure the proper information is available in order to design building foundations and structures specifically for the project site’s soils. Accordingly, mitigation is proposed that would require the proposed project’s applicant to conduct a soils report prior to the issuance of building permits. Implementation of this mitigation would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure

MM-Geology-1. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall obtain a site-specific soils report from a qualified California licensed soils engineer. The applicant’s engineer must review the report before finalizing foundation designs to ensure that all requirements from the soils engineer are met. The soils report must be submitted to the Merced County Building and Safety Division as part of any building permit application.

d) No Impact. The project site is more than 70 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean and no large hills or volcanic features are located in the project vicinity. Consequently, inundation



by tsunami or mudflow is unlikely and would not pose a significant hazard to the site. According to Merced County’s General Plan, there is a potential for major earthquakes to trigger seiches at several large lakes located in the County, specifically the San Luis Reservoir. However, it is unlikely that a seiche wave from the San Luis Reservoir would reach the project site since it is more than 30 miles away and the project site is not located in the San Luis Reservoir dam inundation area. In light of these conditions, no impact would result from a seiche, mudflow, or volcanic hazard.

e) Less Than Significant Impact. The topography of the project site is relatively flat. Grading and excavation would be required prior to construction of the proposed buildings and retention basin. Grading for the proposed building would be minimal and would not significantly change the site’s topography. According to the submitted Conditional Use Permit application, approximately 3,000 cubic feet of cut and fill would be required during project construction. The cut and fill would most likely be for the construction of the retention basin. The proposed retention basin could be up to six feet deep depending on the depth to groundwater at the project site. Soil removed from the retention basin area would either be removed from the site or would be used to create earthen berms surrounding the retention basin. Nonetheless, the resulting topography changes would be minor and would not represent a significant impact.

f) No Impact. The proposed project would not create, cut, or fill slopes greater than 2:1 or higher than 10 feet.

g) Less Than Significant Impact. No subsurface sewage disposal systems are currently located on the project site. Two septic systems are proposed as a part of the proposed project and would be constructed in conformance with Merced County’s Department of Public Health, Environmental Health division’s regulations. Construction and installation of the septic systems would be coordinated with project grading and excavation activities to ensure the septic systems are not impacted during project construction. The leach field for the office and warehouse would be designed to allow for 300 percent expansion. With the exception of the retention basin, the final topography of the project site would be primarily flat and would, therefore, not negate the construction of additional subsurface disposal systems should they be needed. Impacts would be less than significant.

h) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Site grading, excavation, and construction have the potential to result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Wind-blown soil erosion would be prevented through the use of water trucks to stabilize soils during project construction. Implementation of MM-Hydrology-1 would avoid water based soil erosion. This impact is therefore considered to be less than significant with incorporated mitigation.



i) No Impact. Soils that are considered expansive contain significant amounts of clay materials. On-site soils are classified as Delhi loamy sand, silty substratum, 0 to 3 percent slopes (DeA). On-site sandy soil conditions preclude the occurrence of soil expansion on the project site. Furthermore, the proposed project is required to adhere to the grading and foundation requirements of the International Building Code. As such, no impact is expected.

j) Less Than Significant Impact. No in-channel construction is proposed as part of the proposed project. No creeks, rivers, or lakes are within a one-mile radius of the project site. All waterways within a mile of the project site are irrigation canals, laterals, or retention basins. While the proposed project would disturb on-site soils during project construction activities, fugitive dust prevention and suppression would be required on-site to minimize the offsite transport of dust during construction activities. Upon completion of the proposed project, stormwater runoff would be directed to an onsite retention basin where it would percolate into the ground. Accordingly, the proposed project would not change deposition, siltation, or erosion on or near the project site, and impacts are considered less than significant.

k) Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would alter the drainage pattern of the project site by increasing the impermeable surface area by approximately 7.4 acres. As discussed under impact d) in the Hydrology section, upon project completion, stormwater would be directed to an onsite retention basin. The onsite stormwater system would avoid any increases in water erosion either on- or off-site. Because construction of the proposed project would affect more than one acre of land, the applicant would be required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to comply with Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. The SWPPP is required to incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) that minimize the amount of soil erosion occurring both during and after construction. Because the proposed project will adhere to these requirements, as required by law, this impact is considered less than significant. For more information, refer to mitigation measure MM-Hydrology-1.

l) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would result in the disturbance of on-site soils during project construction activities. However, fugitive dust prevention and suppression would be required on-site, and compliance with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII would minimize the offsite transport of dust during construction activities such that the impact would be less than significant.



7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

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

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


Briefly stated, climate change is a change in the average weather of the earth that may be measured by changes in wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. These changes are assessed using historical records of temperature changes that have occurred 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.

Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are greenhouse gases (GHGs). The effect is analogous to the way a greenhouse retains heat. Common GHGs include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides, chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, ozone, and aerosols. Natural processes and human activities emit GHG. The presence of GHGs in the atmosphere affects the earth’s temperature. Without the natural heat trapping effect of GHG, the earth’s surface would be about 34°C cooler (CAT 2006). However, 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.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) currently does not regulate GHG emissions from motor vehicles. 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 EPA regulate four GHGs, including carbon dioxide, under Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act. A decision was made on April 2, 2007, in which the Supreme Court held that petitioners have a standing to challenge the EPA and that the EPA has statutory authority to regulate emissions of GHGs from new motor vehicles. On April 17, 2009, the EPA released a proposed finding that determined climate change poses a risk to public health. The finding, finalized by the EPA effective January 14, 2010, is a key step in regulating GHGs under the CAA.



Federal regulation of greenhouse gases can occur through other means, such as fuel efficiency standards. President Barrack Obama put into motion a new national policy to increase fuel economy for all new cars and trucks sold in the United States. The new standards would cover model years 2012 through 2016 and would require an average fuel economy standard of 35.5 miles per gallon in 2016. A new Corporate Average Fuel Economy law was passed by Congress in 2007, which required an average fuel economy of 35 miles per gallon in 2020. EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, on behalf of the U.S. Department of Transportation, released a notice of intent to conduct joint rulemaking to establish vehicle greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy standards in May 2009. It should be noted, however, that EPA’s involvement in the joint rulemaking is dependent upon finalizing the endangerment finding discussed above, thereby providing regulatory authority over greenhouse gas emissions to the EPA.

There have been significant legislative and regulatory activities that directly and indirectly affect climate change and GHGs in California. The primary climate change legislation in California is AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 focuses on reducing GHG emissions in California. GHGs, as defined under AB 32, include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. AB 32 requires that GHGs emitted in California be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) is the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of GHGs that cause global warming in order to reduce emissions of GHGs.

The ARB Governing Board approved the 1990 GHG emissions level of 427 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MMTCO2e) on December 6, 2007. Therefore, in 2020, annual emissions in California are required to be at or below 427 MMTCO2e.

The ARB Board approved the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) in December 2008. The Scoping Plan “proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall GHG emissions in California, improve our environment, reduce our dependence on oil, diversify our energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health” (ARB 2008). The measures in the Scoping Plan will be developed over the next 2 years through rule development at the ARB and other agencies, and are expected to be in place by 2012.

As noted in the Scoping Plan, the projected total business-as-usual emissions for year 2020 (estimated as 596 MMTCO2e) must be reduced approximately 30 percent to achieve the ARB’s approved 2020 emission target of 427 MMTCO2e. 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.

The SJVAPCD has adopted the Final Draft Staff Report, Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts Under the California Environmental Quality Act (November 5, 2009), that included a



recommended methodology for determining significance for stationary source projects and traditional development projects (such as residential, commercial or industrial projects). The proposed project does not fall under the category of a stationary source project, but is a development type project, because it would construct a new light industrial building and relocate an existing operation to the new facility. Therefore, the guidance document may not be fully applicable to the proposed project.

Checklist Evaluation Thresholds of Significance Guidelines for what would constitute a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions from projects have not been developed by the ARB, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), the EPA. However, the SJVAPCD has adopted guidance on determining a project’s greenhouse gas significance. The SJVAPCD finds the effects of project-specific emissions to be cumulative, and without mitigation, that their incremental contribution to global climatic change could be considered cumulatively considerable. The SJVAPCD believes that this cumulative impact is best addressed by requiring all projects to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, whether through project design elements or mitigation.

The SJVAPCD’s approach is intended to streamline the process of determining if project specific greenhouse gas emissions would have a significant effect. Projects exempt from the requirements of CEQA, and projects complying with an approved plan or mitigation program would be determined to have a less than significant cumulative impact. Such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources and have a certified Final CEQA document.

Best Performance Standards would be established according to performance-based determinations. Projects complying with Best Performance Standards do not require specific quantification of greenhouse gas emissions and are determined to have a less than significant cumulative impact for greenhouse gas emissions. Projects not complying with Best Performance Standards require quantification of greenhouse gas emissions and demonstration that greenhouse gas emissions have been reduced or mitigated by 29 percent, as targeted by CARB’s AB 32 Scoping Plan. Furthermore, quantification of greenhouse gas emissions is required for all projects for which the lead agency has determined that an Environmental Impact Report is required, regardless of whether the project incorporates Best Performance Standards.

For stationary source permitting projects, Best Performance Standards means “The most stringent of the identified alternatives for control of greenhouse gas emissions, including type of equipment, design of equipment and operational and maintenance practices, which are achieved-in-practice for the identified service, operation, or emissions unit class. For development projects, Best Performance Standards means “Any combination of identified greenhouse gas emission reduction measures, including project design elements and land use decisions that reduce project specific greenhouse gas emission reductions by at least 29 percent as compared to business as usual.”



a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project contributes to climate change impacts through its contribution of greenhouse gases (GHG). The proposed project would emit greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide from the exhaust of equipment and the exhaust of vehicles for employees and hauling trips.

The proposed project may also emit GHGs that are not defined by AB 32. For example, the proposed project may generate aerosols. Aerosols are short-lived GHGs, as they remain in the atmosphere for about 1 week. Black carbon is a component of aerosol. Some studies have indicated that black carbon has a high global warming potential; however, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that it has a low level of scientific certainty (IPCC 2007). Water vapor could be emitted from evaporated water used for dust control and maintenance, but this is not a significant impact because water vapor concentrations in the upper atmosphere are primarily due to climate feedbacks rather than emissions from project-related activities. The proposed project would emit nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, which are ozone precursors. Ozone is a GHG; however, unlike the other GHGs, ozone in the troposphere is relatively short-lived and can be reduced in the troposphere on a daily basis.

Certain GHGs defined by AB 32 would not be emitted by the proposed project. Perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride are typically used in industrial applications, none of which would be used by the proposed project. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed project would emit perfluorocarbons or sulfur hexafluoride.

Project Emissions Inventory Construction

Greenhouse gas emissions would be generated during project construction, resulting from engine exhaust from worker trips, on-road hauling, and off-road equipment use. Construction emissions were estimated using URBEMIS 2007 version 9.2.4 (see Appendix B for the output files).

The proposed project would result in approximately 241 metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MTCO2e) from construction. MTCO2e is calculated by multiplying the tons of CO2 by 0.9072 and the global warming potential of 1. The proposed project’s calculated GHG inventory from construction is presented in Table 4.



Table 4: 2011 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions

CO2 Emissions Emission Source Tons Metric Tons CO2e

Grubbing/Land Clearing 18.99 17

Fine Grading 37.76 34

Asphalt 12.21 11

Building 196.53 178

Architectural Coating 0.25 0

Total Emissions* 265.73 241

Source: URBEMIS (Appendix B)

Operations

The existing facility would not be demolished. The re-use of the existing facility is currently unknown; however, it is anticipated that the adjacent almond hulling facility, owner of the existing Mid Valley Agricultural Services site, would re-appropriate the facility to their operations. There is low confidence in the type and intensity of re-use of the existing facility, and more importantly, the re-use of the existing facility is not a component of this project. Therefore, for the purposes of this project, it is assumed that reuse of the existing facility would be of similar intensity as the existing operations of Mid Valley Agricultural Services. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an increase of operational emissions from a future re-use of the existing building, and further emissions analyses are not warranted. The analysis focuses on the operational emissions associated with the use of the proposed Mid Valley Agricultural Services facilities.

Operational or long-term emissions occur over the life of the proposed project. Mobile, area source, and indirect sources generate operational emissions. Mobile sources are exhaust emissions from the employee vehicles and heavy-duty trucks that would access the project site. Area source emissions are from combustion of natural gas. Indirect sources refer to the off-site emissions generated for the electricity required for the proposed project.

Vehicle trip generation for the employees and sales staff was provided by the project applicant. Similar to the existing facility, the proposed facility would employ 20 full-time on-site employees, 3 part-time employees, and 12 outside sales staff. On-site employees would travel to the project site on a daily basis during the workweek. The sales staff typically travel between home and customer sites. The proposed project would not change the service area for the sales staff; therefore, those vehicle miles traveled would essentially remain the same. The sales staff visits to the project site occur on a much less frequent basis than the on-site employees. The sales staff trips were translated into a daily trip rate as



shown in Table 5. The trip generation for the employees and sales staff is provided in Table 5.

Table 5: Employees and Sales Staff Trip Generation

Vehicle Trips Employee Classification Trips Round Trips to Site Daily

Sales Staff

4 1 a month 0.08

4 1.5 a week 1.2

2 1 a day 2

2 2 times a day 4

Sales Staff Subtotal ~ 8

On-site Employees

20 Full time 20

3 Part time 3

On-site Employees Subtotal 23

Total Trips 31

Source: Project Applicant, 2009; Michael Brandman Associates, 2009.

The trips generation estimates provided in Table 5 represent two-way trips, the information was input into URBEMIS to reflect one-way trips by adjusting the land use screen and trip generation rate to achieve a total of 62 one-way trips (31 round trips) for employees and sales staff. The default rural trip length of 14.7 miles was used to generate total daily VMT of 911.4 miles. The project emissions from sales staff and employees were treated as new emissions and the existing emissions were not subtracted.

The proposed project anticipates an increase in the number of heavy-duty diesel truck trips for product delivery. Truck trip generation as provided by the applicant is shown in Table 6.

Table 6: Truck Trip Generation

Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Trips Annual Trips Average Daily*

Round Trips Average Daily* One-

Way Trips

Existing 326 1.25 2.50

New 28 0.11 0.21

Total 354 1.36 2.72

Notes: * Assumes a 5-day work week, 52 weeks per year. Source: Project Applicant, 2009



The truck trip generation estimate provided in Table 6 represents round trips; the information was input into URBEMIS to reflect one-way trips by adjusting the land use screen and trip generation rate to achieve a total of 708 one-way trips (354 round trips) for proposed project truck trips. The default rural trip length of 14.7 miles was adjusted to 50 miles to generate total daily VMT of 136 miles for the proposed project truck trips. The proposed project is assumed to be fully operational in the year 2012.

As part of the proposed project, a well would be constructed to supply potable water. The project site is currently planted in almond trees. Almond orchards reportedly use between 1 and 4 acre feet of water per year (Niederholzen 2009). Based on this assumption, the existing 15.5 acres of almond trees use between 15.5 and 62 acre-feet of water per year. According to information provided in the submitted Conditional Use Permit application, the proposed project is expected to require approximately 432 gallons of water per day or 0.4 acre feet per year; far less than the existing orchard. Greenhouse gas emissions generated by water transport and treatment would therefore decrease with the proposed project and were not included in the emissions estimate.

The unmitigated emissions estimations from operation of the proposed project at year 2012 (first full year of operation) are presented in Table 7. This list is not exhaustive and does not contain all of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the proposed project (such as waste decomposition and landscape emissions); however, it does present the main sources of greenhouse gas emissions for the proposed project.

Table 7: Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Tons per Year Source Carbon Dioxide Nitrous Oxide Methane

MTCO2e per Year

Heavy Duty Diesel Truck Trips

200 0.005 0.005 183

Employee/Sales Staff Vehicles

154 0.02 0.01 146

Natural gas 216 0 0.0001 196

Indirect Electricity 56 0.001 0.002 51

HVAC 26

Total 626 0.026 0.0171 602

Source: Michael Brandman Associates, Appendix B.



As shown in Table 7, operational emissions would be approximately 602 MTCO2e in 2012.

The operational emissions resulting from the proposed project reflect the very low levels of vehicle activity and area emissions associated with the proposed project. Area emissions are expected to be generated by natural gas consumption. In addition, emission from construction and operation of the facility (including emissions from traffic) are minimal and as demonstrated in the air quality analysis, Section 3, are within limits established by applicable air quality attainment plans. Project emissions estimated in Table 7 do not incorporate emission reductions associated with implementation of existing state law. Reductions resulting from state law implementation and inclusion of design features are described below. Table 8 illustrates the emission reductions that CARB predicts for state regulations that implement AB 32

Table 8: Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions from State Regulations and AB32 Measures

Sector

Affected Emission Sources

California Legislation

Reduction from 2020 GHG Sector Inventory

(%)

Total Regulation Reductions for the Applicable Sector

(%)

AB 1493 Pavley 17.2

LCFS 7.2%

On-road passenger vehicles

Passenger Vehicle

Efficiency 0.9%

25.3

LCFS 7.2%

Mobile

Heavy/Medium Duty Vehicles

Heavy Duty Vehicle

Efficiency 1.9%

9.1

Area Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Measures

9.2% 9.2

RPS 15.3% Indirect Electricity

Energy Efficiency Measures

10.9% 26.2

Stationary Refrigerants Refrigerant Management

Program 50.0 50.0

Notes: AB = Assembly Bill; LCFS = Low Carbon Fuel Standard; RPS = Renewable Portfolio Standard ARB adopted the Refrigerant Management Regulation in December 2009 and estimates approximately 53 percent of CO2e emissions could be reduced from stationary refrigeration or air-conditioning equipment (subject to the regulation) as a result of reduced leak rates from improved inspection and maintenance practices required by the regulation. Sources: Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Update, Proposed Thresholds of Significance, December 7, 2009. Data compiled by ICF Jones & Stokes; ARB Scoping Plan, Refrigerant Management Program Rulemaking Documents, Appendix B. Refer to Appendix B of this Initial Study for calculations of emission reduction percentages.



The operational emissions after incorporation of regulations are shown in Table 9. Implementation of regulations reduce emissions by 98 MTCO2e, approximately 16 percent of total project emissions. After application of reductions from the regulations, the main source of emissions is from motor vehicles, contributing 55 percent of the estimated emissions. Unfortunately, due to the location and type of project, there are few additional mitigation measures that may be used to additionally reduce the proposed project’s greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, the SJVAPCD does not provide a ‘bright-line’ emissions threshold for greenhouse gases, a tonnage threshold below which a project would be deemed less than significant (similar to the SJVAPCD’s regional emissions thresholds).

Table 9: Greenhouse Gas Emissions with Reductions from Regulations

On-Road Passenger Vehicles Heavy Duty Natural Gas

Indirect Electricity HVAC

Business as Usual Emission Inventory(MTCO2e / year)

146 183 196 51 26

% of source subject to Regulations

100.0% 100.0% 100% 100% 100%

Emissions Subject to Regulation

146.00 183.00 196 51 26

Regulation Reduction (%) 25% 9% 9% 26% 50%

Emission Reduction 36.94 16.65 18.03 13.36 13.00

Net Project Emissions 109.06 166.35 177.97 37.64 13.00

It is notable that the proposed project would generate substantially fewer emissions than the 25,000 MTCO2 per year required for mandatory reporting to the California Air Resources Board, the 10,000 MTCO2 per year limit under the Assembly Bill 32 cap and trade program, and the 10,000 MTCO2 per year threshold used by SCAQMD for stationary sources where the SCAQMD is the Lead Agency.

Conclusion Because of the minor nature the proposed project, resulting greenhouse gas emissions would be generated at a level that would not significantly contribute to climate change.

b) Less than Significant Impact. Since Merced County and the SJVAPCD have not adopted Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans, significance is based on whether the proposed project would hinder or delay California’s ability to meet the reduction targets set forth in AB 32 or conflict with ARB’s adopted Scoping Plan.



The Scoping Plan states that “The 2020 goal was established to be an aggressive, but achievable, mid-term target, and the 2050 greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal represents the level scientists believe is necessary to reach levels that will stabilize the climate” (ARB 2008, page 4). The 2050 goal is in Executive Order S-3-05.

The year 2020 GHG emission reduction goal of AB 32 corresponds with the mid-term target established by S-3-05, which aims to reduce California’s fair-share contribution of greenhouse gases in 2050 to levels that will stabilize the climate.

Construction of the proposed project is estimated to generate CO2. However, AB 32 requires that greenhouse gas emissions generated in California in year 2020 be equal to or less than California’s statewide inventory from 1990. Construction emissions would occur before the year 2020; the proposed project’s construction would not contribute to year 2020 emissions, as shown in Table 4, project construction emissions would occur in the year 2011 and would amount to 241 MTCO2e. Therefore, construction emissions would not hinder or delay California’s implementation of AB 32.

As noted in the Scoping Plan, the projected total business-as-usual emissions for year 2020 (estimated as 596 MMTCO2e) must be reduced approximately 30 percent to achieve the ARB’s approved 2020 emission target of 427 MMTCO2e. 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 renewable 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; 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.



The Scoping Plan’s recommended measures mainly target reductions in the transportation and electricity sectors. As a small office/warehouse facility (as apposed to a residential, energy sector, or commercial facility), the majority of the Scoping Plan recommended measures do not apply to the proposed project. The only measure applicable to the proposed project is energy efficiency and the proposed project would comply with Title 24 energy efficiency measures. Implementation of certain Scoping Plan measures may obliquely affect the proposed project, such as the low carbon fuel standard and enactment of the Pavley standards.

Since global climate change is the product of human activity throughout the world, the simple relocation of an activity emitting greenhouse gas from one place to another does not increase the quantity of heat trapping gases and, therefore, does not worsen global climate change (particularly vehicular CO2 emissions that would have taken place on a global level irrespective of the proposed project). In determining whether the proposed project interferes with the goals of AB 32 and S-3-05, a qualitative analysis best accomplishes this goal. From a qualitative standpoint, the proposed project is substantially a relocation coupled with a minor projected increase in activity. As shown in the impact above, it is not likely that there would be substantial new emissions associated with the proposed project’s operations. Furthermore, while reuse of the existing site, which is smaller than the proposed project’s site, would result in additional emissions, these are likely to be similar to the proposed project and therefore below anticipated significance thresholds.

The proposed project would generate low levels of GHGs during construction and operation and therefore, would not significantly hinder or delay the State’s ability to meet the reduction targets contained in AB 32, or conflict with implementation of the Scoping Plan.



7 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

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

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

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

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

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


This section contains a description of the setting regarding hazardous materials handled by the proposed project. The discussion is based primarily on information contained in the Hazardous Materials Business Plan and other available environmental hazard literature. These data sources were supplemented by observations made during site reconnaissance visits conducted on October 16, 2009.

Hazardous materials, such as those proposed to be used at the project site, are defined by the California Code of Regulations as substances with certain physical properties that could pose a substantial present or future hazard to human health or the environment when improperly handled, disposed, or otherwise managed. Hazardous materials are grouped into the following four categories, based on their properties:

• Toxic - causes human health effects • Ignitable - has the ability to burn • Corrosive - causes severe burns or damage to materials • Reactive - causes explosions or generates toxic gases



The criteria that define a material as hazardous also define a waste as hazardous. If improperly handled, hazardous materials and hazardous waste can result in public health hazards if released into the soil or groundwater or through airborne releases in vapors, fumes, or dust. The project site is currently not listed on any federal, State, regional or local hazardous materials databases.

Under Merced County Code 18.41.050, any business that is involved in handling and/or storage of hazardous materials shall file a business plan with the Merced County Environmental Health Division for review and approval prior to operating the business. The use, handling, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials shall comply with all applicable requirements of Government Code Section 65850.2 California Code of Regulation, Title 23, Chapter 15, Articles I through IV, and the Uniform Fire Code.

According to the Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement issued by Merced County (see Appendix C), the project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.


a) Less than significant Impact. Hazardous materials and waste regulations are implemented by a number of government agencies including, but not limited to, the following:

• United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA);

• California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - Department of Toxic Substances Control;

• California Division of Industrial Safety;

• California State Fire Marshal;

• California Highway Patrol;

• Merced County Sheriff’s Department; and,

• Merced County Fire Department.

Each of the aforementioned agencies has established regulations regarding the proper transportation, handling, management, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials for specific operations and activities. The proposed project would transport, store, and sell hazardous materials including fertilizers, fungicides, insecticides and herbicides. The proposed project would also include underground storage tanks for diesel and gasoline to be used by delivery vehicles.

The Mid Valley Agricultural Services currently has a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) on file at Merced County’s Department of Public Health, Environmental Health



division. The HMBP will be updated as a part of the proposed project. The current HMBP lists the types and quantities of fertilizers, fungicides, insecticides and herbicides stored onsite as well as the emergency evacuation routes. The HMBP identifies 16 chemical, 13 types of adjuvants or buffers, and 24 fertilizers and nutrients as being stored onsite. The HMBP can be viewed at the Merced County Department of Public Health, Environmental Health division. Material Safety Data Sheets for the commonly found chemicals onsite are also available for viewing in the Merced County Planning Office. Material Safety Data Sheets provide general information on the toxicity and recommended remediation measures for specific chemicals.

The worst health effects that may occur are associated with consistent exposure to concentrated forms of the chemicals to be stored. As part of the design and management of the warehouse and chemical storage areas, a number of measures would be implemented to minimize potential health and environmental effects. These measures include:

• The chemicals would be used in dilute concentrations; • Handling of chemicals would be automatic/mechanical and there would be limited

direct handling of chemicals by Mid-Valley Agricultural staff; • The warehouse would protect equipment and chemicals against the weather and would

ensure that any spills can be safely contained in the buildings design sump prior to clean-up;

• The wearing of appropriate protective equipment by all staff would be mandatory in the warehouse and in other chemical storage areas.

In the broader facility context and compared to other types of chemical hazards on site, the presence of relatively minor quantities of non-flammable substances in a dedicated storage area is not likely to pose a major threat. Nevertheless, the potential for accidental exposure to employees cannot be eliminated but the significance of the potential health and safety impacts associated with the storage of chemicals is regarded as medium-low.

In accordance with Merced County Code 18.41.050, an updated HMBP would be required prior to project approval. The HMBP would ensure that all hazardous materials would be handled in accordance with the appropriate regulations and that safety and emergency procedures are in place. All handling of hazardous materials would also be required to abide by applicable regulations of the agencies previously listed. The updated HMBP would fulfill the federal and State Community Right-To-Know laws and provide detailed information for use by emergency responders. All onsite hazardous materials would be handled and stored according to applicable safety and regulatory guidelines. Accordingly, hazardous materials handled onsite would not be likely to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment and impacts would be less than significant.



b) Less Than Significant Impact. As previously indicated, the proposed project would transport, store, and sell hazardous materials related to agricultural operations. Hazardous materials, including diesel fuel and other motor lubricants would also be used during construction and operation. As previously discussed, the handling and transport of all hazardous materials onsite would be performed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Diesel fuel and gasoline would be delivered to the site a contracted service that would abide by applicable regulations.

The safety consequences of a truck accident involving hazardous materials depend on the probability of a spill in an accident and the type of material involved. Transportation accidents involving trucks loaded with the above hazardous materials may result in fires, explosions, or releases of toxic vapor clouds. Based on discussions with the applicant and County representatives, there have not been any documented large spills within the operation lifetime of the existing Mid Valley Agricultural Services operation. Accordingly, it is appropriate to assume that any spills that would occur at the new site would be relatively small and would only cause minor impacts such as odors, short-term health impacts, or minor property damage. Major spills, which would likely be rare, could cause substantial injuries to nearby persons or property. However, transporters of hazardous materials are required to comply with Department of Transportation regulations designed to reduce the number of accidents and to reduce the chance for a spill should an accident occur.

Market demand will determine the precise locations where the chemicals will be shipped on any given day, but the highest likelihood is that the product will be shipped to the greater San Joaquin Valley for use. The proposed project would result in a slight increase in traffic to the project area; however, the increase would occur gradually over time as business increases and as a result of the reuse of the existing facility. Therefore, an increase in the probability of delivery truck accidents would be minor. All uses and proposed facilities will have to comply with all applicable regulations regarding transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, including DOT and project specific mitigation regulations, therefore no additional mitigation is necessary. The proposed project is not being designed to accommodate uses that manufacture hazardous materials. In summary, the use of these substances is not expected to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset or accident. Impacts would be less than significant.

c) No Impact. No schools are located within one-quarter mile of the project site. Schools closest to the project site are Cressey Elementary, Livingston Elementary and Livingston Valley Community school, located 1.4 miles northeast, 1.4 miles southwest, and 1.2 miles south of the project site, respectively. As previously discussed, all hazardous materials would be properly handled in accordance with applicable regulations. Since no schools are located within one-quarter of a mile of the project site, no impact would occur.



d) No Impact. Pursuant to CEQA, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) maintains a Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List (Cortese List). As part of the Cortese list, DTSC also tracks “Calsites,” which are mitigation or brownfield sites that are subject to Annual Workplans and/or are listed as Backlog sites, confirmed release sites that are not currently being worked on by DTSC. Before placing a site in the backlog, DTSC ensures that all necessary actions have been taken to protect the public and environment from any immediate hazard posed by the site. The project site is not included in the DTSC Cortese List and the closest listed site is the Castle Commerce Center and Airport, which is more than 5 miles to the southeast. Furthermore, a Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement (Appendix C) indicates that the site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. No impact would therefore occur.

e) No Impact. The proposed project’s three access routes would meet all emergency access requirements of Merced County. Construction of the proposed project would not create an obstruction to surrounding roadways or other access routes used by emergency response units and would not impair the implementation of an adopted emergency response plan. No impact in the regard would occur.



7-1 - Airports

Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Result in an inconsistency with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan?

b) Require review by the Airport Land Use Commission?

c) For a project located within an airport area of influence boundary, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

d) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, or heliport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?


a) No Impact. The nearest public airport to the proposed project is the Castle Commerce Center and Airport, located approximately 5.35 miles to the southeast. This distance places the project site outside of the boundaries of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. No impact in this regard would occur.

b) No Impact. As provided in checklist question (a), the proposed project is outside of the boundaries of an airport land use plan. No impact would occur.

c) No Impact. As provided in checklist question (a), the proposed project is outside of the boundaries of an airport land use plan. No impact would occur.

d) No Impact. There are no known private airstrips within a 1-mile radius of the project site.



7-2 - Hazardous Fire Area

Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) 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?


a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, because there are no wildlands surrounding the project site. The site currently consists of an almond orchard. Surrounding land uses consist of almond orchards, row crops, and rural residences. The General Plan identifies that irrigated agricultural land is less susceptible to wildland fires than other agricultural uses, such as grazing. General Plan Map 16, titled “Fire Hazard Severity Zones,” shows the project site as being located in a Local Response Area (LRA). LRA designation denotes areas serviced by Merced County Fire Department in which fire hazards are reduced because of fire prevention measures. In summary, risk of wildland fire is low and this impact would be less than significant.



8 - Hydrology and Water Quality

Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

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

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)?

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 that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

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 that would result in flooding on- or off-site?

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?

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?


a) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Development of the proposed project would require grading and construction activities, including the removal of existing almond trees, approximately 3,000 cubic feet of cut and fill, and excavation of the retention basin. During these soil-disturbing activities, soil erosion may occur on site. There would also be the potential for surface water to carry sediment from onsite erosion and small quantities of pollutants (e.g., oil or fuel used in construction equipment) offsite thereby potentially affecting local waterways (e.g. the Livingston Canal or Wakefield Lateral) by degrading water quality.



In order to reduce or avoid potential discharges to local waterways, Mitigation Measure MM-Hydrology-1 would be implemented. Construction contractors would follow a Stormwater Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP) as part of a NPDES General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit for this proposed project. The SWPPP would prevent the discharge of pollutants to stormwater runoff to the maximum extent practicable by implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to avoid erosion and discharge of silty runoff off-site.

Upon completion, the project site would contain approximately 7.4 acres of impervious surface area. Table 12 depicts the project site’s surfaces by type of surface and use.

Table 10: Impervious Surfaces

Surface Type/Use Area (Square Feet)

Impervious Surfaces

A. C. Pavement Area 279,520

Building Area 19,300

Canopy/Concrete Areas 5,700

Concrete Area 6,332

Tank Farm Area 10,800

Scale Area 700

Fuel Island Area 1,200

Impervious Surface Area Subtotal 323,552 (7.4 acres)

Pervious Surfaces

Gravel Area 83,483

Landscape Area 9,633

Unimproved Areas / Drainage Basin 258,041

Pervious Surface Area Subtotal 351,157 (8.1 acres)

Total Site 674,709 (15.5 acres) Source: R. B. Welty & Associates 2009.

Stormwater runoff would be directed to an onsite retention basin where it would be allowed to percolate into the ground. Water used for rinsing fertilizer storage and transportation equipment would not be allowed to percolate into the ground at the project site but rather would be captured onsite via a drainage system located in the Tank Farm area where water would drain to a designed sump and then pumped to a storage tank. Regardless, the proposed retention basin would be designed to filter out residual chemicals before percolation. It is Mid Valley Agricultural Service’s standard practice to sell or give collected rinse water to local farmers who use it for field application, thereby maintaining adequate onsite stormwater



quality. The presence of fertilizers in the rinse water is seen as a benefit to farmers who would use other fertilizers if no rinse water were provided.

Wastewater produced by the proposed project would be directed to one of two on site septic systems that would comply with the requirements of Merced County’s Department of Environmental Health.

With implementation of a SWPPP, the proposed project would not violate water quality standards for construction activities. Stormwater would be directed to an onsite retention basin and water used for equipment rinsing would not be allowed to enter the stormwater system. Accordingly, this impact is considered less than significant with incorporation of Mitigation Measure Hydrology-1.

Mitigation Measure

MM-Hydrology-1: Prior to the issuance of building permits for the proposed project, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the County of Merced a site-specific SWPPP as part of the NPDES General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit. The site-specific SWPPP will require the construction contractor to incorporate the SWPPP Best Management Practices (BMP) measures into all aspects of the project and meet Merced County construction requirements. The BMPs will include measures for management and operation of construction sites to control and minimize the potential contribution of pollutants to storm runoff from these areas. These measures address procedures for controlling erosion and sedimentation and management of all aspects of the construction to ensure control of potential water pollution sources.

Construction phase BMPs will include:

• Dust control. • Minimal use of water for dust control (only as much as needed). • Dry sweeping and/or storm drain inlet control measures (e.g.

sandbags, filter fabric, fiber rolls, etc.). • Install silt barriers around sensitive areas and wherever earthwork

activities might result in erosion and sediment transport. • Stabilize stockpiled soils (if any). • Post-construction stabilization or revegetation. • Runoff control.

The measures included in the SWPPP will be monitored regularly for effectiveness. If a measure is found to be ineffective, it will be redesigned or replaced immediately.



b) Less Than Significant Impact. As part of the proposed project, a well would be constructed to supply potable water in accordance with California’s Department of Water Resources Water Well Standards.

Groundwater is a significant source of water in Merced County and is used for both agricultural and urban land uses. Current groundwater extraction for agricultural use by the County’s three largest irrigation districts is in excess of 250,000 acre feet per year. As identified in the County General Plan, groundwater withdrawals in the San Joaquin Valley subbasin currently exceed recharge. Groundwater overdraft is primarily noticeable in areas near El Nido and Le Grand, between 21 and 25 miles southeast of the project site. Efforts to increase recharge and reduce overdraft are currently in place.

The project site is currently planted in almond trees and served by the Merced Irrigation District. Almond orchards reportedly use between 1 and 4 acre feet of water per year (Niederholzen 2009). Based on this assumption, the existing 15.5 acres of almond trees use between 15.5 and 62 acre-feet of water per year. According to information provided in the submitted Conditional Use Permit application, the proposed project is expected to require approximately 432 gallons of water per day or 0.4 acre feet per year; far less than the existing orchard.

The proposed project would construct 7.4 acres of impermeable surfaces. Stormwater runoff from these surfaces would be directed to an onsite retention basin where it would be allowed to percolate into the groundwater system, thereby contributing to groundwater recharge.

In summary, the proposed project would use less water than the existing onsite orchard. In addition, stormwater runoff would be allowed to percolate in the onsite detention basin, allowing for groundwater recharge. Accordingly, impacts to groundwater supplies and recharge would be less than significant.

c) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. No streams or rivers are located on the project site; however, Merced Irrigation District’s Wakefield Lateral is located approximately 200 feet to the south. The proposed project would alter approximately 15.5 acres of land and create 7.4 acres of impervious surface. Implementation of MM-Hydrology-1 would ensure that potential construction erosion and siltation would not affect off site drainages such as the Wakefield Lateral. As discussed under impact b) stormwater resulting from the completed project would be directed to an on site retention basin, which would inhibit any erosion or siltation from occurring on- or off-site. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

d) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. There are no rivers or streams located on the project site. As noted under impact c), the Wakefield Lateral is



located 200 feet south of project site. Implementation of MM-Hydrology-1 would ensure that construction activities would not direct drainage into the lateral or any other nearby water bodies. Upon project completion, all stormwater would be directed to the onsite retention basin. Therefore, because no streams or rivers are located on the project site, no project-level impacts related to erosion, siltation, or on- or off-site flooding would result from the alteration of a stream or river. Implementation of the proposed project would alter the drainage pattern through the minor change in topography from site grading and with the creation of impervious surfaces. These changes would increase the onsite stormwater runoff rate. However, as previously indicated, all onsite stormwater would be directed to a retention basin. As required by Merced County Code 18.48.060, the retention basin would be designed to accommodate a 25-year, 24-hour storm and to prevent any on- or off-site flooding. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.

e) Less Than Significant Impact. According to information provided in the submitted Conditional Use Permit application, the proposed project is expected to create approximately 9,283 cubic feet of stormwater run-off in a 24-hour period during a 10-year storm. Stormwater would be directed to a retention basin located in the northwestern portion of the project site through surface flow, gutters, and drainage swales. Runoff would consist of stormwater collected from building roofs and surrounding paved areas, from which, no substantial sources of pollution would be created. Nonetheless, the retention basin would be designed to filter out residual chemicals prior to percolation. Water used to rinse fertilizer storage containers and equipment would be captured onsite for reuse at approved offsite locations and would not be released into the retention basin. Impacts would therefore be less than significant.

f) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As described above, a SWPPP would be implemented that employs BMPs to avoid erosion and off-site discharges of water runoff (MM-Hydrology-1). Implementation of the SWPPP would avoid water quality impacts to adjacent lands and waterways including the Wakefield Lateral during construction.

As part of a Conditional Use Permit, the applicant is required to update their existing Hazardous Materials Business Plan that would ensure that agricultural chemicals, fuels, and other potential water pollutants would be safely stored, transferred and, should a spill occur, contained. These measures would avoid or reduce impacts to both surface and groundwater quality. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.



8-1 - Floodplains

Degree of Suitability in 100-Year Floodplains. Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Change absorption rates or the rate and amount of surface runoff?

b) 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 (Dam Inundation Area)?

c) Change the amount of surface water in any water body?

d) 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?

e) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows?


a) Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would increase impermeable surfaces across the site by 7.4 acres, thereby decreasing the absorption rates over a large portion of the project site. The project proposes to attenuate increases in runoff by directing all stormwater to an onsite retention basin where water would percolate into the ground. This design would reduce absorption rate and surface runoff impacts to a less than significant level.

b) Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Merced County General Plan’s Safety Element, “virtually no urban area in the County is free from flooding in the event of a dam failure,” and according to the General Plan’s Potential Dam Failure Inundation Areas Map 12b, the project site is at the outermost edge of McClure Reservoir’s inundation area. However, dams, such as the McClure Reservoir dam, are typically monitored on a regular basis for any signs of potential structural failure so corrective actions can be made immediately. Due to the project’s distance to the dam (21 miles) and the low probability of failure, impacts are considered less than significant.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides information on flood hazard and frequency for cities and counties on its Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). FIRM No. 06047C0200G, Panel 200 of 1225, identifies the flood hazard potential for the project area as Zone X, indicating it is not within the 100-year floodplain area (FEMA 2008).



In summary, implementation of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk from flooding or dam failure. Impacts would be less than significant.

c) No Impact. The proposed project would not discharge water into any nearby water bodies, including surrounding agricultural water supply infrastructure such as the Wakefield Lateral. No impacts would result.

d-e) No Impact. As discussed under impact b) the project site is not located within a 100-year flood zone area. As such, the proposed project would not expose housing, people, or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death due to flooding.



9 - Land Use and Planning

Would the project:


Impact

Less Than Significant with

Mitigation Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Physically divide an established community?

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?

c) Affect land use within a city sphere of influence and/or within adjacent city or county boundaries?

d) Result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area?

e) Be consistent with the site’s existing or proposed zoning or planned land use of an area?

f) Be compatible with existing surrounding zoning?

g) Be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses?


Merced County’s General Plan designates the land use of the project site as Agricultural. Zoning of the project site is, similarly, General Agricultural (A-1). As an agricultural support facility, Mid Valley Agriculture is considered an intensive use by the General Plan. The term ‘intensive’ is defined by the General Plan as land uses which involve buildings and activities which may generate employment, traffic, noise, odors, smoke or other impacts. Intensive uses such as the proposed project are allowed in agricultural areas. The impacts from intensive use facilities vary tremendously depending on certain factors including the amount of building coverage, number of employees and vehicle trips generated, noise and odor generation, drainage methods, and other characteristics of intensity. While some of these facilities are clustered along major roads and highways, other facilities do not approach a concentration that creates an intense environment that could be defined as urban in character. The proposed project would not be considered as located in an urban area, nor would it create an urban area, and would produce odors or smoke. Table 11 summarizes the land use and zoning designations for the project site and surrounding parcels.



Table 11: Land Uses and Zoning Designations of the Project Site and Surrounding Areas

Direction from Project Site Existing Land Use

General Plan Designation Zoning Designation

Project Site Almond Orchard Agriculture A-1 (General Agriculture)

North Orchard Agriculture A-1 (General Agriculture)

South Agricultural storage Agriculture A-1 (General Agriculture)

East Orchard Agriculture A-1 (General Agriculture)

West Almond Orchard/Almond hulling operation/existing Mid Valley Agricultural Services operation

Agriculture A-1 (General Agriculture)


a) No Impact. The site is located in an unincorporated area of Merced County, approximately 1.8 miles west of Highway 99, northwest of Livingston. The project site consists of an existing almond orchard. Land uses in the immediate project vicinity are characteristic of rural portions of the central San Joaquin Valley and unincorporated sections of Merced County. Orchards, row crops, various agriculture-related structures, and scattered rural residences occupy the areas adjacent to the project site.

Construction of the proposed project would convert the existing almond orchard into a 19,300-square-foot agricultural chemical storage, resale, and distribution facility. Scattered rural residences exist near the project site. The two closest residences to the project site are 800 and 1,600 feet to the southeast and north, respectively. However, the proposed development would not disrupt or divide an established community and no impact would occur.

b) Less Than Significant Impact. The Merced County General Plan governs land use activities in unincorporated portions of Merced County. General Plan policies most relevant to the proposed project are contained in the Land Use and Agricultural Chapters. The Land Use Chapter contains land use planning designations and describes the allowable uses for each designation. The Agricultural land use designation recognizes the value and importance of agriculture by acting to preclude incompatible urban development within agricultural areas. This designation establishes agriculture as the primary use, but allows dwelling units, limited agriculture-related commercial services, agriculture-related light industrial uses, and other uses that, by their unique nature, are not compatible with urban uses, provided they do not conflict with the primary agricultural use. As identified by the General Plan, agricultural commercial structures (e.g., buildings) generally do not exceed 10 percent lot coverage. The



proposed project’s structures would represent a 3 percent lot coverage (19,300 square feet of building space on 15.5 acres), thus conforming with the General Plan.

According to the County’s Zoning Code, the purpose of the General Agricultural (A-1) Zone is to allow for areas with more intensive farming operations, dependent on higher quality soils, water availability, and relatively flat topography; and agricultural commercial and/or industrial uses, dependent on proximity to urban areas or location in sparsely populated low traffic areas. Agricultural chemical or fertilizer storage facilities and agricultural contractors are conditionally-permitted uses within Agricultural zones. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with the County’s Zoning Code.

Based on these findings, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the proposed project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and impacts would be less than significant.

c) No Impact. The project site is located in an unincorporated area of Merced County and is not located adjacent to a city or the County boundary. No impact would occur.

d) No Impact. The proposed project is consistent with the existing land use and zoning designations as discussed under checklist question b). No change to the existing land use designation or zoning is included in the proposed project. The proposed project would construct a 19,300 square foot agricultural chemical storage, resale, and distribution facility that would support local agricultural operations. As such, the proposed project would not result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of the site or its surroundings. No impact would occur.

e) No Impact. As described above, the proposed project is consistent with the County’s General Plan and zoning code. No land use or zone change is requested as part of the proposed project. No impact in this regard would occur.

f) No Impact. As described above, the agricultural chemical storage, resale, and distribution facility would be consistent with the County’s General Agricultural (A-1) zoning designation. As such, the proposed project is not expected to adversely affect adjacent agricultural activities, and no impact would occur.

g) No Impact. As described above, the proposed project is compatible with the adjacent agricultural land uses. The County has formalized this compatibility by identifying agricultural support services as an appropriate land use within agricultural areas. No impacts in terms of compatibility with adjacent land uses would occur.



10 - Mineral Resources

Would the project:


Impact




Impact No

Impact

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

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

c) Be an incompatible land use located adjacent to a State classified or designated area or existing surface mine?

d) Expose people or property to hazards from proposed, existing or abandoned quarries or mines?


The California Geological Survey (CGS) classifies the regional significance of mineral resources in accordance with the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA). Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) have been designated to indicate the significance of mineral deposits. The MRZ categories are as follows:

• MRZ-1: Areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence.

• MRZ-2: Areas where adequate information indicates significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood exists for their presence.

• MRZ-3: Areas containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data.

• MRZ-4: Areas where available information is inadequate for assignment to any other MRZ.


a) No Impact. Sand and gravel extraction and production constitute the majority of the mineral resources produced in Merced County both in terms of quantity of the material produced and the value of the material produced. Other mineral resources in the County include gypsum and diatomite. According to Map 21 of the Open Space and Conservation Chapter of the Merced County General Plan the project site is not located within a sand and gravel resource area. No impact in this regard would occur.



b) No Impact. No mineral extraction activities exist on the project site and mineral extraction is not included in project designs. As stated above in checklist question (a), the proposed project is not designated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site as indicated by the County’s General Plan. No impact in this regard would occur.

c) No Impact. As noted in the Project Description, land uses in the project vicinity and bordering the site include orchards, row crops, agricultural support facilities and rural residences. Therefore, the proposed project would not be situated adjacent to a State classified or designated area or existing surface mine. No impact in this regard would occur.

d) No Impact. No proposed, existing, or abandoned mines exist on the project site or immediate vicinity, nor are any mines proposed in project designs. No impact in this regard would occur.



11 - Noise

Would the project:


Impact




Impact No

Impact

a) For a project located within an airport area of influence boundary, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

b) 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?

c) Railroad Noise?

d) Highway Noise?

e) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

f) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

g) 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?

h) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?


A variety of noise sources exist throughout Merced County. Mobile noise sources that produce a major effect on the ambient noise environment include automobile traffic, aircraft over flights, and train movements. The primary mobile noise source in the project area is automotive traffic along the adjoining roadways and mobile farm equipment. A number of stationary sources also generate noise on a regular basis within Merced County, including gravel, agricultural, and construction-related activities. The closest stationary noise sources to the project site are the almond processing facility, located at the southwest corner of Eucalyptus Avenue and Sultana Drive and the Monte Cristo Packing Company, located at the southeast corner of Mercedes and Monte Cristo Roads.

Merced County has established noise compatibility standards for residential and non-residential land uses in the Noise Element of the Merced County Year 2000 General Plan (Merced County 2000). The General Plan establishes acceptable interior and exterior residential noise levels from roadway, rail, and air traffic and acceptable daytime and nighttime noise levels from other sources. The County has adopted a sound level limitation in Section 10.60.030 of Chapter 10 of the Merced County Code



that restricts the sound level when measured at or within the property line of the receiving property (Merced County 2000) (Table 12). This ordinance does not apply to noise from construction activity, provided that all construction in or adjacent to urban areas occurs between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. and all construction equipment is properly muffled and maintained.

Table 12: Merced County Ordinance Sound Level Limitations

Residential Property Non-Residential Property

Daytime (7 a.m. - 10 p.m.) Not to exceed background sound level by 10 dBA

Nighttime (10 p.m. - 7 a.m.) Not to exceed background sound level by 5 dBA

If the background sound level cannot be determined:

65 dBA DNL or 75 dBA Lmax 70 dBA DNL or 80 dBA Lmax

Source: Merced County, 2004.

Agricultural support facilities, such as the proposed project, are not considered noise sensitive land uses. According to the Noise Element of the Merced County General Plan, the project site is not located in a noise-impacted area. The nearest sensitive noise receptors to the project site are single rural residential houses located 800 feet to the southeast and 1,600 feet to the north.


a) No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport area of influence boundary. The nearest airport to the project site is the Castle Commerce Center and Airport, which is located more than 5 miles to the southeast. This distance places the proposed project outside of the boundaries of the airport land use plan and precludes exposure to excessive aviation noise levels. No impact would occur.

b) No Impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. No impact would occur.

c) No Impact. The nearest railroad is approximately 1.3 miles to the northeast. Distance from the project site to the tracks precludes impacts occurring from railroad noise. No impact would occur.

d) No Impact. The project site is located more than 1.8 miles north of State Route 99 and well outside of both the 65 and 60 dBA noise contour. Therefore, no impact would occur.

e) Less Than Significant Impact. The Merced County General Plan identifies that the production of noise is an inherent part of many industrial, commercial, and agricultural processes. Noise levels within such facilities is controlled by Federal and State employee health and safety regulations (OSHA and Cal-OSHA), but exterior noise levels have the



potential to exceed locally acceptable standards at noise sensitive land uses (Merced County 2000).

The proposed project’s potential to substantially increase ambient noise levels at nearby properties is defined by using the term “substantial.” The term “substantial” is not defined in the CEQA Guidelines. However, research into the human perception of sound level increases indicates the following:

• A 1 dBA, or less, increase is difficult to perceive; • A 3 dBA increase is just perceptible; • A 5 dBA increase is clearly perceptible, and • A 10 dBA increase is perceived a being twice as loud.

Therefore, under typical outdoor ambient conditions, where constantly varying noise levels are occurring over time, people typically cannot clearly perceive increases in ambient noise levels until they reach approximately +3 dBA. Therefore, 3 dBA is generally accepted as the threshold beyond which increases to local ambient noise levels resulting from projects are considered “substantial.”

In light of the sound level perception thresholds and noise standards described above, potentially significant increase in ambient noise levels would occur if:

• Noise generated by the project would increase outdoor noise levels by 3 dBA or more, and if outdoor noise levels at that location would exceed the County’s noise standards measured at or within the property line of the receiving sensitive receptor.

The proposed project would develop a 19,300-sqaure-foot agricultural chemical storage, resale, and distribution facility for Mid Valley Agricultural Services. There current location is approximately 800 feet to the west of the project site. General noise levels at the new facility would be similar to those at the existing operation. The storage and sale of fertilizers does not generally create excessive amounts of noise. Noise generated by the proposed project would employee and customer traffic, delivery and service vehicles, and general facility operations. According to Merced County staff, there have been no complaints filed against Mid Valley Agricultural Services for excessive noise at the current location.

The facility’s new location would increase its proximity to the residence southeast of the project site by approximately 2,000 feet, resulting in a distance of 800 feet between the project’s property boundary and the residence. However, the distance and intervening orchards between the proposed project and residence would minimize the amount of perceptible noise and levels would not likely increase beyond 3 dBA at the residence.



In summary, given the existing agricultural nature of surrounding facility operations, noise levels are not anticipated to increase beyond a perceptible level by sensitive receptors. Furthermore, any additional noise would not cause facility operations to exceed the County’s maximum permissible sound level of 70 dBA Ldn or 80 dBA Lmax. Therefore, these increases in ambient noise are considered less than significant.

f) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Construction of the proposed project could generate significant noise, corresponding to the particular phase of building construction and the noise-generating equipment used during construction. As previously noted, the closest sensitive receptor(s) to the project site is a rural agricultural residence located 800 feet southeast of the project boundary. Given that certain pieces of construction equipment can generate noise levels of 85 dBA or louder at a distance of 50 feet, project-related construction activities would temporarily raise ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. However, compliance with the Merced County Noise Regulations and implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure

MM-Noise-1. The Applicant shall implement the following measures during project-related construction:

• Construction activities shall be limited to between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m., Monday through Saturday, to avoid noise-sensitive hours of the day. Construction activities shall be prohibited on Sundays and holidays.

• Construction equipment noise shall be minimized by muffling and shielding intakes and exhaust on construction equipment (per the manufacturer’s specifications) and by shrouding or shielding impact tools.

g) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed under impact area e), noise levels associated with the proposed project would not exceed standards established in the Merced County General Plan or Noise Ordinance. Impacts would be considered less than significant.

h) Less Than Significant Impact. The metric for measuring ground borne noise and vibration is peak ground velocity (measured in inches per second). The commonly accepted perception threshold for ground vibration is 0.01 inches per second. During the site preparation and construction phase, which includes site excavation activities, ground borne vibration and ground borne noise may occur. However, these excavation activities do not include activities known to induce strong vibration effects, such as those produced by tunneling or blasting. Therefore, site preparation and construction-related vibration levels are expected to be well below the 0.01 inches per second perception threshold at nearby properties.



Once the site preparation and construction phase are complete, these activities would cease. As such, less than significant impacts related to ground borne vibration and noise would result from the proposed project’s implementation during the short-term construction period and no impact would result during the long-term operation of the proposed project.



12 - Population and Housing

Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

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

b) Create a demand for additional housing, particularly housing affordable to households earning 80% or less of the County’s median income?

c) Affect a County Redevelopment Project Area?

d) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections?

e) 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?)


The project site is located 1.8-miles west of Highway 99, in an unincorporated area of Merced County northeast of the city of Livingston. Land uses surrounding the project site consist of orchards, row crops, agricultural support facilities, and rural residences. According to data obtained from the California Department of Finance, the January 2009 population estimate for unincorporated Merced County was 88,188 persons, an approximate 11 percent increase from the 2000 population of 78,132. Merced County’s population as a whole was estimated at 256,450 for January 2009 and 210,554 for the year 2000, resulting in an 18 percent increase in the County’s total population over the last nine years.


a) No Impact. No residences are located on the project site. Rural residences are located approximately 0.4 mile to the west and 0.15 mile to the southeast, however these residences would not be altered as a result of project implementation. Therefore, no impacts to existing housing would result from project implementation.

b) Less Than Significant Impact. Local workers would be utilized for the construction of the proposed project and would not require additional permanent housing. Upon completion of the proposed project, existing Mid Valley Agricultural Employees would be transferred to the new facility. The project applicant has estimated that approximately 5 employees could be added to their workforce in the next 10 years as their gross sales revenue increases. These



employees would likely come from the existing workforce in Merced County. Therefore, demand for additional housing as a direct result of the proposed project would be minimal, if any, and impacts would be less than significant.

c) No Impact. County redevelopment programs in Merced County include redevelopment of the Castle Commerce Center and Airport. The project site is not within the Castle Airport Aviation and Development Center project area. No impact would occur in this regard.

d) Less Than Significant. The proposed project, in combination with the reuse of the existing site, may result in several additional available jobs in the project area. As discussed in impact b) above, additional employees would likely be selected from Merced County’s existing labor pool. The number of jobs created by both uses would not be substantial. Accordingly, it is unlikely that the proposed project, in combination with the reuse of the existing site would significantly add to the population of Merced County. The proposed project’s contributions to population increase in Merced County would be less than significant.

e) No Impact. The proposed project does not contain a residential element and would create only minimal new employment opportunities. As such, the proposed project would not directly induce population growth. There are no on- or off-site improvements associated with the proposed project that would result in indirect population growth. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in direct or indirect population growth, and no impact would occur.



13 - Public Services

Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities or the 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:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Fire Services?

b) Sheriff Services?

c) Schools?

d) Libraries?

e) Health Services? Checklist Evaluation

a) Less Than Significant Impact. The Merced County Fire Department provides fire suppression, recovery, and fire code enforcement services for both the existing facility and the project site. Station Number 64, located at 9255 Cressey Way in Cressey (approximately 1.5 miles to the northwest) serves the project area. The Merced County Fire Department also provides first responder level emergency medical services, including rescue and extrication, as well as control and mitigation of hazardous material emergencies. Fire stations are staffed 24 hours a day by a full-time Fire Captain or Fire Apparatus Engineer and emergency response is augmented with over 325 Paid Call Firefighters (volunteers).

The proposed project would convert approximately 15.5 acres of agricultural land to light-industrial use. The office, warehouse and workshop would be constructed in compliance with local and state fire codes. Onsite fire protection infrastructure would include a water storage tank and associated refill pump. The new facility would be designed in compliance with all applicable safety and fire hazard regulations and would likely update the equipment used by the existing facility. Any calls for service would cause only temporary effects to fire services, and impacts would not result in a notable increase in fire risk and service demand for the area. Impacts would be less than significant.

b) Less Than Significant Impact. Law enforcement services for the project area are provided by the Merced County Sheriff’s Department. The nearest Sheriff’s Community Law Enforcement Office is located at 6600 Winton Way in Winton, California, approximately 4 miles southeast of the project site. The proposed facility does not specifically create an environment generally associated with unlawful activities requiring law enforcement services. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.



c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is located within the boundaries of the Livingston Union School District; however, no housing units that have the potential to generate school-age children are proposed. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly create an increased number of school age children for the Livingston Union School District. Agricultural support service projects that do not include the development of residential units (such as the proposed project) are not required to provide education development fees to the County. Likewise, any jobs that will be provided as a result of the proposed project would be filled with local residents. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

d) Less Than Significant Impact. The nearest branch of the Merced County Library System is located in Livingston, 2.6 miles southwest of the proposed project. No dwelling units are included in the proposed project; as a result, no substantial physical impacts associated with the provision of new library services would result. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

e) Less Than Significant Impact. The Merced County Public Health Department provides many health services to the residents of Merced County, including medical programs, food inspection, and oversight of on-site sewage and grey water systems. Nearby emergency health facilities include Mercy Hospital, located at 301 East 13th Street in the City of Merced, approximately 13 miles southeast of the project site. As stated above, the proposed project does not include a residential element and any increase in employees would be minimal. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause an increase in population that would require health services.

Activities that would take place at the project site during both construction and facility operation could cause illness or injury. However, construction of the proposed project would be performed by trained professionals and would involve minimal risk. Likewise, operational activities would be performed by trained employees and would be similar to the operational activities that take place at the current facility. Accordingly, increases in health service needs would be minimal, if any, and impacts would be less than significant.



14 - Recreation


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Would the project include the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

b) Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?


a) No Impact. The proposed project consists of the construction of a 19,300 square-foot agricultural support facility that would replace the current facility located 800 feet to the west. The closest recreational facility is McConnell State Park located 1.35 miles northwest of the project site. This facility is available to serve any recreational needs of the employees. However, no change in the usage of recreational facilities is likely to result from project implementation. Therefore, no project-level impacts to neighborhood or regional parks would result from project implementation.

b) No Impact. The proposed project does not include a recreational component. In addition, because the proposed project does not propose any residential development, parkland dedication or in-lieu fees in conformance with the Quimby Act would not be required. As explained in Response a), above, new or expanded recreational facilities would not be necessary. Therefore, because the proposed project does not propose recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, no project-level recreational facility-related impacts to the environment would occur.



15 - Transportation/Traffic

Would the project: Potentially Significant

Impact




Impact No

Impact

a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections?

b) Result in inadequate parking capacity?

c) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated road or highways?

d) 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?

e) Alter waterborne, rail, or air traffic?

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

g) Cause an effect upon, or a need for new or altered maintenance of roads?

h) Cause an effect upon circulation during the project’s construction?

i) Result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?

j) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks?)


A network of interstate and state highways and local roads is present in the region. The ability of that network to accommodate existing traffic demands depends on the specific location considered. The roadways surrounding the project site include:

• Eucalyptus Avenue - Rural two lane connector • Sultana Drive - Rural two connector



Consideration of potential transportation and circulation impacts that may result from the proposed project primarily involves determining whether a net change would occur in traffic generated by personnel commuting to or from the project site, and by vehicle trips related to the facility operations.

Projected Trip Generation Construction (Short-term) The proposed project is assumed to take 5 to 6 months to construct. Construction would likely take place between January 2011 and be completed by December 2011. However, for the purposes of a conservative analysis, a 12-month construction period is assumed in this document. It is expected that the workforce required would be drawn from local or regional labor pools. The average construction workforce would be approximately 10 persons. The peak construction workforce is expected to be approximately 15 persons. Assuming that there would be no ride sharing, the proposed project would generate approximately 15 round trips per day for worker vehicles during the peak construction period. In addition to worker vehicles, there would be increased truck traffic for delivery of construction material, facility equipment, and concrete aggregate. Traffic resulting from project construction would result in a total of approximately 250 trips made by trucks weighing 10 tons or more, including delivery of manufactured building components, concrete, construction equipment and other miscellaneous construction materials. These truck trips would occur throughout the construction period. Additional construction traffic would be comprised mostly of light trucks (contractor trucks, personal vehicles, etc.) weighing less than five gross tons. Construction would typically be scheduled between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m., Monday through Friday. Additional hours within the operational hours allowed by the Merced County Code may be necessary to make up schedule deficiencies. Construction traffic would be temporary and likely occur outside of peak traffic hours.

Operation (Long-term) The proposed project would involve moving Mid Valley Agricultural Service’s existing operation to a new facility that would be constructed approximately 850 feet to the east. Operation levels would remain approximately the same initially, with some growth occurring as a result of larger capacity. This growth would likely occur over a period of time as Mid Valley Agricultural Services expands their business. Accordingly, traffic increases would initially be minimal and slight increases would occur only if or when business levels are increased. Mid Valley Agricultural Services has indicated that approximately 326 delivery trips are made each year to their current location and they expect an increase of 21 to 28 delivery trips per year after project construction.

According to Mid Valley Agricultural Services staff, approximately 31 trips are made to and from the site on an average day by on-site employees and sales staff. The level of employee trips is expected to increase slightly, with the addition of 2 full-time and 3 outside sales staff.

According to a letter dated June 22, 2009 from Howard Boardman of the Merced County Department of Public Works, Road Division, the proposed project would not affect the surrounding roadways enough to justify impact fees or roadway improvements.




a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site’s current use as an almond orchard does not generate regular traffic trips with the exception of those conducted during the harvest season. Construction and operation of the proposed project would redirect traffic accessing the existing project site 850 feet to the west, to the new project site, and thereby, continue to affect the same roadways and the existing site. Employee traffic trips are expected to increase by no more than 10 trips (5 additional employees, each going to and from the project site each day). As stated above, Mid Valley Agricultural Services has indicated that approximately 326 delivery trips are made per year to their current location and they expect an increase of 21 to 28 delivery trips per year after project construction. The existing and new truck trips would occur throughout the day, during regular business hours (typically 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.), and therefore, would not occur simultaneously during peak traffic hours when traffic flows are heaviest.

As stated by a letter by Howard Boardman from the Merced County Department of Public Works, Road Division, “the proposed use will not affect the surrounding roadways enough to justify impact fees or improvements to roadways at this time.” Furthermore, the proposed project’s increase in truck and employee trips would be minimal. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.

b) Less Than Significant Impact. Project-related parking facilities would be required to meet Merced County Zoning Code 18.40 and would be adequate for agricultural/industrial operations. The proposed project would provide 87 regular spaces, 15 1-ton spaces, and 5 large truck spaces for a total of 107 parking spaces, which would provide adequate parking for employees, customers, and delivery vehicles. In addition, 112 spaces for trailers and equipment would be provided to allow storage space for equipment that is currently kept on customer’s properties. Impacts would be less than significant.

c) Less Than Significant Impact. The Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) is a Joint Powers Authority consisting of Merced County and the six incorporated cities of Atwater, Dos Palos, Gustine, Livingston, Los Banos, and Merced. MCAG is Merced County’s designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency, responsible for preparing and administering state and federal transportation plans for Merced County.

The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) specifies the policies, projects, and programs necessary over a 25-year period to maintain, manage, and improve the region’s transportation systems (Merced County Association of Governments 2004). The RTP is required to be developed per California Government Code Section 65080 et seq., of Chapter 2.5 and the U.S. Code, Title 23, Sections 134 and 135 et seq. The RTP provides a comprehensive long-range view of transportation needs and opportunities for Merced County. It establishes goals and objectives for the future system and identifies the actions necessary to achieve these



goals. Finally, it describes a funding strategy and options for implementing the actions. The RTP is required to balance priorities with expected funding. Based on actions outlined in Chapter 2, Project Description, the proposed project is not expected to conflict with the implementation of RTP.

The 2004 RTP and associated EIR identified Scenario C-2 as the preferred scenario for regional transportation development (MCAG, 2004a and b). This scenario assumed that development and growth would continue corresponding to existing general plans. Therefore, given the proposed project is consistent with the site’s existing land use and zoning, the proposed project is not expected to result in cumulative traffic impacts and/or conflict with the RTP.

d) No Impact. Air traffic patterns would not be affected by development of the proposed project. Therefore, no impact in this regard would occur.

e) No Impact. The proposed project is not located near a navigable waterway, rail line or airport and therefore would have no impact on waterborne railway or air traffic. No impact in this regard would occur.

f) Less Than Significant Impact. As a condition of approval, the applicant will be required to dedicate 10 feet of right-of-way along Eucalyptus Avenue and Sultana Drive, including a 50-foot radius curve at the southeast corner of the intersection in accordance with Merced County’s Improvement Standards and Specifications for roadways. The proposed project’s three access points would be constructed in accordance with Merced County Department of Public Works, Road Division, standards and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (ASHTO) guidance in order to avoid roadway hazards and other traffic-related hazardous features. Impacts in this regard are considered to be less than significant.

g) Less Than significant Impact. As stated above, the proposed project would result in a minimal increase in truck trips to the project site. The Merced County Department of Public Works, Road Division, indicated that no impact fess or roadway improvements would be required as a result of project implementation. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.

h) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project does not propose to alter the existing roadways and would not require lane closures. For this reason, project construction is not expected to significantly affect roadway circulation.

i) No Impact. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not change access for emergency vehicles or access to nearby uses. No facilities are proposed as part of the proposed project that would change emergency access to the project site or that would affect



access to nearby uses. Because no changes in emergency access or access to nearby uses would occur as a result of the proposed project, there would be no impacts associated with emergency vehicle access.

j) No Impact. No new facilities are proposed that would increase hazards or create barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. Because the proposed project would not affect pedestrian or bicycle facilities, or the potential hazards of using such facilities, there would be no impacts associated with pedestrian and bicycle hazards.



16 - Utilities and Service Systems

Would the project:


Impact




Impact No

Impact

a) Require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects?

b) Require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities, including septic systems, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects?

c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may service the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

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

e) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

f) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid wastes (including the CIWMP (County Integrated Waste Management Plan)?

g) Electricity?

h) Natural gas?

i) Communications systems?

j) Storm water drainage?

k) Street lighting?

l) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?

m) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?


a) No Impact. Potable water would be supplied to the proposed project via a proposed well in the southeast corner of the project site. According to the submitted Conditional Use Permit application, the proposed project is expected to require an average of 432 gallons per day,



which would be supplied directly to the facility from the well. The well would be constructed in accordance with Merced County Code, Title 9, Chapter 28, which incorporates the California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 74-81 “Water Well Standards,” and Bulletin 74-1 “Cathodic Protection Well Standard.” Accordingly, no new water treatment facilities or the construction of new water treatment facilities would be required. No impact would occur.

b) Less Than Significant Impact. Approximately 389 gallons (90 percent of water consumption) per day of wastewater is expected to be produced by the proposed project. Wastewater produced at the project site would be directed to one of two proposed onsite septic systems. The septic systems would be designed to conform to the requirements of Merced County’s Department of Public Health, Environmental Health division. The leach field for the office and warehouse would be designed to allow for 300 percent expansion. The shop building would have a leach field with a potential for expansion of 200 percent. Construction and operation of the septic tanks would be expected to cause significant environmental effects and impacts would be less than significant.

c) No Impact. The proposed project does not propose connection to an existing sanitary sewer collection and treatment system.

d) No Impact. As discussed under impact a), an average of 432 gallons of water per day would be supplied to the proposed project via a proposed well in the southeast corner of the project site. The well would be constructed and operated in compliance with Merced County Code, Title 9, Chapter 28, Wells. No new water entitlements would be required. Furthermore, as discussed under Section 8 – Hydrology and Water Quality, under impact b) the proposed project would use water than the existing use. No impact would occur.

e) Less Than Significant Impact. Winton Disposal would provide solid waste removal services to the project site. The nearest landfill is the Highway 59 Landfill, located at 6040 North Highway 59 in Merced, California, which has approximately 93 percent of its capacity remaining and is allowed to receive up to 1,500 tons of waste per day (State of California 2009). Operation of the proposed project would be expected to produce approximately 4.2 cubic yards of waste per week, which is a similar amount to the solid waste produced by the existing facility. Construction of the proposed project would create solid waste beyond what is normally produced by the facility. However, since no building demolition would be required at the project site, additional construction waste would not be of a significant volume. Impacts would be less than significant.

f) Less Than Significant Impact. Solid waste disposal must follow the requirements of the contracted waste hauler, which follows federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to the collection of solid waste. The proposed project would comply with all State



and local waste diversion requirements including the Merced County Solid Waste Management Plan and Merced County Code 18.44 regarding trash and recycling areas. As reported by the CIWMB, Merced County’s 2006 diversion rate was 70 percent, which is well above the state goal of 50 percent. For these reason, the impact is considered less than significant.

g) Less Than Significant Impact. Electricity would be provided to the project site by PG&E. The proposed project would be designed in accordance with adopted energy conservation plans and would be required by Merced County Code to adhere to the California Energy Code, as adopted by reference. The usage increase of public energy required by the proposed project would not be expected to violate applicable federal, state, and local statues and regulations relating to energy standards. The proposed project is not expected to exceed PG&E’s service capacity or require new or expanded facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to the provision of energy services.

h) No Impact. The proposed project does not include consumption or production of natural gas. No impact in this regard would occur.

i) Less Than Significant Impact. Connection to AT&T communication service would likely be installed during construction and would not result in any additional impacts not evaluated in this document.

j) Less Than Significant Impact. Approximately 7.4 acres of impervious surfaces would be added to the project site. All onsite stormwater drainage would be directed to a retention basin to be located in the northwest corner of the project site. The retention basin would be designed and constructed according to the final impervious surface area of the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant.

k) No Impact. As previously discussed under the Aesthetics Section, the proposed project would include exterior lighting located on buildings and in exterior storage areas. A County approved streetlight would be constructed at each of the three project site access points to adequately light the driveways. As such, the proposed project would provide its own source of lighting and would not require such services from the County. No impact would occur.

l) No Impact. As discussed in the Transportation Section, the Merced County Department of Public Works, Road Division has determined that the proposed project would not affect the surrounding roadways enough to justify impact fees or roadway improvements. Furthermore, project implementation is not expected to require construction or increased maintenance of any public facilities. As such, no impact to public roads or other public facilities is expected (Boardman, pers. comm.).



m) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would be designed in accordance with adopted energy conservation plans and would be required by Merced County Code to adhere to the California Energy Code, as adopted by reference. As such, no conflicts with adopted energy plans are expected to occur and impacts would be less than significant.



17 - Mandatory Findings of Significance


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare, or endangered plant or animal to eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one, which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.)

c) Does the project have impacts, which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual 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 as defined in California Code of Regulations, Section 15130)?

d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?


a) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in the preceding sections, with the implementation of mitigation measures included in this IS, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment, including effects on animals or plants, or to eliminate historic or prehistoric resources.

b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would maximize both short-term and long-term resource use goals by allowing for the development of the site consistent with the existing land use and zoning designations. Because the proposed project would



accommodate long-term Merced County environmental goals to benefit agricultural operations within the County, the proposed project would not have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals. Based on these project characteristics, this impact is considered less than significant.

c) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in the previous sections, impacts resulting from construction or implementation of the proposed project would be reduced to a less than significant level by project design characteristics or by implementing mitigation measures included in this IS. The mitigation measures prescribed in each respective section and required as provisions included in the project description would render the proposed project’s contribution less than cumulatively considerable.

d) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. Air quality, hazardous materials, or noise would be the only avenues through which the proposed project could have a substantial effect on human beings. However, all potential effects of the proposed project related to air quality, hazardous materials and noise are identified as less than significant or less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation. Impacts related to dust and particulates would be minimized through compliance with local air district regulations and would therefore avoid causing substantial adverse effects on human beings. Impacts related to hazardous materials would be minimized through compliance with local, state, and federal regulations regarding the handling of hazardous materials. Noise impacts resulting from project-related construction activities would be temporary and mitigated to the extent feasible. The impact analysis included in this IS indicates that for all other resource areas, the proposed project would either have no impact, no significant impact, or for impacts that would not affect human beings, less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

County of Merced - Mid Valley Agricultural Services Project Initial Study Environmental Determination


SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a Negative Declaration will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Report is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measure based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Environmental Impact Report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

County of Merced - Mid Valley Agricultural Services Project Initial Study Applicants’s Agreement to Mitigation


SECTION 4: APPLICANT’S AGREEMENT TO MITIGATION

The project applicant, Byron Kurosaki (on behalf of Mid Valley Agricultural Services), agrees to the following mitigation measures as required by Section 15070(b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines and project plans will be modified to avoid potential adverse physical effects of the project as identified in this study:

MM-Biology-1. Tree removal shall occur outside of the nesting season (September 1 through February 28). If trees must be removed during the nesting season (March 1 through September 1), preconstruction surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted within 250 feet of the project site. Surveys shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to initiation of construction. If active nests are located, construction shall be halted until a fledging has occurred as determined by a qualified biologist. Alternatively, CDFG may be consulted to determine if project construction is likely to impact nesting individuals and if construction may proceed. If construction proceeds, CDFG may require additional mitigation, including the presence of a biological monitor to ensure that construction does not result in nest abandonment.

MM-Biology-2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, and no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to ground disturbance or commencement of construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct a protocol level survey to determine the presence of the San Joaquin kit fox. In the event that this species is detected during protocol-level surveys, consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) shall be required to discuss how to implement the project and avoid “take.” If “take” cannot be avoided, acquisition of a State Incidental Take Permit and corresponding federal take permit will be required prior to project implementation. If the survey identifies potential dens (defined as burrows at least four inches in diameter that open up within two feet), potential den entrances shall be dusted for three calendar days to register track of any San Joaquin kit fox present. If no San Joaquin kit fox activity is identified, potential dens may be destroyed.

If San Joaquin kit fox activity is identified, then dens shall be monitored to determine if occupation is by an adult fox only or is a natal den (natal dens usually have multiple openings). If the den is occupied by an adult only, the den may be destroyed when the adult fox has moved or is temporarily absent. If the den is a natal den, in coordination with the USFWS, a buffer zone of 250-feet shall be maintained around the den until the biologist determines that the den has been vacated. Where San Joaquin kit fox is identified, the provisions of the USFWS’s published Standardized



Recommendations for Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (June 1999) shall apply (except that preconstruction survey protocols shall remain as established in this paragraph). These standards include provisions for educating construction workers regarding the kit fox, keeping heavy equipment operating at safe speeds, checking construction pipes for kit fox occupation during construction, and similar low or no-cost activities.

MM-Cultural-1. If potentially significant archaeological resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of the proposed project, all work within 100 feet of the find shall stop until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find, and, if necessary, develop appropriate mitigation measures in consultation with Merced County and other appropriate agencies and individuals. If significant resources are discovered, a formal evaluation using CEQA criteria will be conducted to determine if further study, test excavations, or data recovery procedures are necessary.

MM-Cultural-2. In the event that human remains are discovered on the project site, all project-related construction shall cease within a 100-foot radius of the remains. Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California, the following shall occur:

The Merced County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, s/he shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours and the NAHC will attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to this State law, then the landowner shall re-inter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance.

MM-Geology-1. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall obtain a site-specific soils report from a qualified California licensed soils engineer. The applicant’s engineer must review the report before finalizing foundation designs to ensure that all requirements from the soils engineer are met. The soils report must be submitted to the Merced County Building and Safety Division as part of any building permit application.

County of Merced - Mid Valley Agricultural Services Project Initial Study Applicants’s Agreement to Mitigation


MM-Hydrology-1. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the proposed project, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the County of Merced a site-specific SWPPP as part of the NPDES General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit. The site-specific SWPPP will require the construction contractor to incorporate the SWPPP Best Management Practices (BMP) measures into all aspects of the project and meet Merced County construction requirements. The BMPs will include measures for management and operation of construction sites to control and minimize the potential contribution of pollutants to storm runoff from these areas. These measures address procedures for controlling erosion and sedimentation and management of all aspects of the construction to ensure control of potential water pollution sources.

Construction phase BMPs will include:

• Dust control. • Minimal use of water for dust control (only as much as needed). • Dry sweeping and/or storm drain inlet control measures (e.g. sandbags, filter

fabric, fiber rolls, etc.). • Install silt barriers around sensitive areas and wherever earthwork activities

might result in erosion and sediment transport. • Stabilize stockpiled soils (if any). • Post-construction stabilization or revegetation. • Runoff control.

The measures included in the SWPPP will be monitored regularly for effectiveness. If a measure is found to be ineffective, it will be redesigned or replaced immediately.

MM-Noise-1. The Applicant shall implement the following measures during project-related construction:

• Construction activities shall be limited to between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m., Monday through Saturday, to avoid noise-sensitive hours of the day. Construction activities shall be prohibited on Sundays and holidays.

• Construction equipment noise shall be minimized by muffling and shielding intakes and exhaust on construction equipment (per the manufacturer’s specifications) and by shrouding or shielding impact tools.

Title: Project Applicant for Mid Valley Agricultural Services (CUP09-006)

County of Merced - Mid Valley Agricultural Services Project Initial Study References


SECTION 5: REFERENCES

ARB 2008 California Air Resources Board. Almanac of Emission Projection Data, 2006: Estimated Annual Average Emissions, Merced County, All Sources. http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/emissiondata.htm. Accessed October 30, 2008.

Boardman, Howard. Merced County Department of Public Works, Road Division. Personal Communication: Letter. June 22, 2009.

California Department of Conservation. 2009a. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 1984-2006. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/fmmp/.

California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. 2009b. Williamson Act Program Map Data. http://www.consrv.ca.gov/DLRP/lca/index.htm

Caltrans. 2009. California Scenic Highway Mapping Program Website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm. Accessed October 27, 2008.

Caltrans. 2009. California Scenic Highway Mapping System, Merced County. Website: www.dot.ca.gove/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm. Accessed October 5, 2009.

CAT, (Climate Action Team) State of California, Environmental Protection Agency,. March 2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature. Website: www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/ index.html.

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 1988a. California’s Wildlife, Volume I: Amphibians and Reptiles. State of California Resources Agency. Sacramento, California.

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 1988b. California’s Wildlife, Volume II: Birds. State of California Resources Agency. Sacramento, California.

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 1988c. California’s Wildlife, Volume III: Mammals. State of California Resources Agency. Sacramento, California.

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. 2005. CWHR Version 8.1 personal computer program. Sacramento

CGS. 2009 California Geological Survey Website: Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Mapping Ground Motion Page http://redirect.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/pshamap/pshamap.asp. Site Accessed October 20

CNDDB (California Natural Diversity Data Base). 2009. Biogeographic Data Branch. Department of Fish and Game. Version 3.1.0; September.

CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2009. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v7-09c). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, California. Available at: http://www.cnps.org/inventory.



Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2008. Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06047C0200G, Panel 200 1225. December 2.

Google. Undated. Google Earth version 4.0.2722.

Hickman, James C. ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual, Higher Plants of California. University of California Press. Berkeley, California.

Holland, R.F. 1986 (updated 1996). Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Non-game Heritage Program. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, California.

Jennings, C. W. 1994. Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with Locations and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions, CDMG Geologic Data Map No. 6, 1:750,000.

Jennings, M.R. and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game. Rancho Cordova, California.

Kurosaki, Brian. Branch Manager, Mid Valley Agricultural Services, Inc. Personal communication: Project Meeting. Merced, California. 2009.

Mayer, K. E., and W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento, 166 pp.

Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG). 2004a. Regional Transportation Plan

Merced County. 2000. Merced County General Plan.

Merced County. 2008. Merced County Annual Report on Agricultural.

Merced County. 2009. Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP09-006.

Neiderholzen, F. 2009. Almonds. Pomology Notes Newsletter. University of California Cooperative Extension. January/February.

NRCS. 2009. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Website: National Hydric Soils List by State (January 2009). http://soils.usda.gov/use/hydric/lists/state.html. Site Accessed October 20

Shuford, W. David and Thomas Gardali, editors. 2008 California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.

Small. 1994. California Birds: Their Status and Distribution. Vista, Ca. Ibis Publishing Company.

Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov.

State of California. 2009. California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). Solid Waste Information System Website http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/SWIS/.

County of Merced - Mid Valley Agricultural Services Project Initial Study References


United States Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Imaging Program (NAIP). 2005. Merced County, 1M spatial resolution aerial image.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2009b. National Hydric Soils List for California. Website: http://soils.usda.gov/use/hydric/lists/state.html.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2009a. Soil Web Survey Website http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.

SJVAPCD 2006 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2006. 2006 PM10 Plan: San Joaquin Valley Strategy for Meeting Federal Air Quality Requirements for Particulate Matter 10 Microns and Smaller.

SJVAPCD 2002 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2002. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts.

Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Official Soil Series Descriptions [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/osd/index.html [Accessed 28 May, 2008]. USDA-NRCS, Lincoln, NE.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2009. Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, CA.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008. List of Endangered and Threatened Species That May Occur in or be Affected by Projects in the Sandy Mush, California USGS Quadrangle (Document Number 090825045414). Official list obtained from USFWS website on January 31, 2008.

USGS (United States Geological Survey). 1987. Cressey, California 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle Map. Department of the Interior. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington D.C.

Western Regional Climate Center. 2009. MERCED, CALIFORNIA (045118) Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary. Available at: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmcca.html.

Williams, D.F. 1986. Mammalian Species of Special Concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game. Wildlife Management Division Administrative Report. Rancho Cordova, California.

County of Merced - Mid Valley Agricultural Services Project Initial Study

Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\1604\16040035\IS-MND\16040035 IS-MND Mid Valley 03-04-2010.doc

Appendix A: Agricultural Conflict Consultation Letter



Appendix B: Air Quality Modeling Data

2/5/2010 11:19:40 AM

Page: 1

File Name: S:\Projects\16040035 Mid Valley Agricultural Services\Reference Library\For Chryss-Modeling Files\Revised Analysis\Mid Valley Ag Services-Existing Truck Trips.urb924

Project Name: Mid Valley Agricultural Services - Project Truck Trips

Project Location: Merced County

On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006

Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007

Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year)

Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4

TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.09 1.32 0.47 0.00 0.09 0.05 199.85

SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2


OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

Summary Report:

2/5/2010 11:19:40 AM

Page: 2

OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated

Mid Valley Ag Truck Trips 0.09 1.32 0.47 0.00 0.09 0.05 199.85


Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM25 CO2

Operational Unmitigated Detail Report:

Light Truck < 3750 lbs 0.0 2.1 91.7 6.2

Light Auto 0.0 0.7 99.1 0.2

Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6

Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs 0.0 0.0 70.0 30.0

Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 0.0 0.9 99.1 0.0

Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 0.0 1.0 98.5 0.5

Vehicle Fleet Mix

Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel

Mid Valley Ag Truck Trips 2.00 1000 sq ft 2.72 5.44 272.00

5.44 272.00

Summary of Land Uses

Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT

Analysis Year: 2012 Season: Annual

Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006

Does not include correction for passby trips

Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips

Operational Settings:

2/5/2010 11:19:40 AM

Page: 3

% of Trips - Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1

Trip speeds (mph) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0

% of Trips - Commercial (by land use)

Mid Valley Ag Truck Trips 100.0 0.0 0.0

Rural Trip Length (miles) 16.8 7.1 7.9 50.0 50.0 50.0

Urban Trip Length (miles) 10.8 7.3 7.5 9.5 7.4 7.4

Travel Conditions

Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer

Residential Commercial

Urban Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Motor Home 0.0 0.0 88.9 11.1

School Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Motorcycle 0.0 59.5 40.5 0.0

Other Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8

Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Vehicle Fleet Mix

Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel

Summary of Operational Greenhouse GasesProject: Mid Valley Agricultural ServicesPrepared by: Michael Brandman AssociatesPrepared on: 9-Nov-09Year of analysis: 2012

SourceCarbon Dioxide

Nitrous Oxide Methane Other

Metric Tons CO2e

Natural gas (Commercial) 216 0.000 0.001 196 Indirect electricity 56 0.001 0.002 51 Refrigerants 0.02 26 Total 273 0.00 0.00 0.02 274

Total 248 0.00 0.00 0.02 metric tons per yearGWP 1 310 21 variesTotal 248 0 0 26 MTCO2E per yearTotal 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 MMTCO2E per year

Total - all gases 274 MTCO2e per year0.0003 MMTCO2e per year

California emissions in 2004 500 MMTCO2e per yearProject percent of emissions 0.000055%

U.S. emissions in 2005 7,260.4Project percent of emissions 0.000004%

Global emissions in 2004 20135Project percent of emissions 0.000001%Last updated 9/23/09

Emissions (tons per year)

Notes:

Emissions converted from tons per year to metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e) per year by using the formula: (tons of gas) x (global warming potential) x (0.9072 metric tons)

Emissions converted to million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MMTCO2E) using the formula: MMTCO2e = (metric tons of gas) / (1,000,000).

Motor vehicle carbon dioxide and natural gas carbon dioxide values are from the URBEMIS2007 output. Waste emissions are from the EPA WARM model output.

Electricity - Indirect EmissionsProject: Mid Valley Agricultural ServicesPrepared by: Michael Brandman AssociatesPrepared on: 11/9/2009

Land Use square feet (sf)Electricity Use (kWh/sf-year)*

Electricity Use (kWh/year)

Small Office/Warehouse 8100 13.1 106110Warehouse 11200 4.45 49840

00

Total 155950156 MWh/year

Greenhouse Gas

Emission Factor (pounds per

MWh)Emissions

(pounds/year)Emissions (tons/year)

Carbon dioxide 724.12 112,927 56Methane 0.0302 5 0.00Nitrous oxide 0.0081 1 0.00

Emission factor source: California Climate Action Registry. General Reporting Protocol. Reporting Entity-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Version 3.1, January 2009. www.climateregistry.org/resources/docs/protocols/grp/GRP_3.1_January2009.pdf, Table C.2.

Natural Gas CombustionMid Valley Agricultural ServicesPrepared by Michael Brandman Associates11/9/2009

Gas Type of Land UseSquare

Feet

Annual Natural Gas Usage

Factor* (kBTU/sf)

Natural Gas Usage for Project

(MMBTU/year)

Emission Factor

(g/MMBTU)**Emissions

(g/year) Emissions (tons/year)

Emissions (pounds/day)

Methane Office 8100 10.54 85 4.75 406 0.00 0.00Warehouse 11200 3.1 34 4.75 163 0.00 0.00

0 4.75 0 0.00 0.00

Nitrous Oxide Office 8100 10.54 85 0.095 8 0.00 0.00Warehouse 11200 3.07 34 0.095 3 0.00 0.00

0 0 0.00 0 0.095 0 0.00 0.00

Units MethaneNitrous Oxide

pounds per day 0.00 0.00tons per year 0 0GWP 21 310MTCO2 Eq/year 0.01 0.00

* *Table E-1 from California Energy Commission. California Commercial End-Use Survey. Consultant Report. March 2006. CEC-400-2006-005

** USEPA, 2004: Direct Emissions from Stationary Combustion Sources, Climate Leaders Greenhouse Inventory Protocol, Core Model Guidance, October 2004

Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Fugitive EmissionsProject: Mid Valley Agricultural ServicesPrepared by: Michael Brandman AssociatesPrepared on: 11/9/2009

Type of Unit UnitsCapacity of

Unit (kg)

Annual Leak Rate in

percent of capacity

Emissions (kg/year)

Emissions (tons/year)

Global Warming Potential

Metric Tons CO2

Equiv./yearDomestic Refrigeration 0.5 0.5% 0 0.000 1300 0Commercial Refrigeration 1000 35.0% 0 0.000 1300 0

Residential A/C 50 10% 0 0 1300 0Office A/C 1 100 10% 10 0.011 1300 13Commercial A/C 100 10% 0.0 0.000 1300 0Industrial A/C 1 100 10% 10 0.011 1300 13

Total 0.022 26

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Leaders. May 2008. Direct HFC and PFC Emissions from Use of Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment. EPA430-K-03-004. http://www.epa.gov/stateply/documents/resources/mfgrfg.pdf, Accessed in July 2008.

Summary of Operational Greenhouse GasesProject: Mid Valley Agricultural ServicesPrepared by: Michael Brandman AssociatesPrepared on: 9-Nov-09Year of analysis: 2012


Nitrous Oxide Methane

Metric Tons CO2e

Motor vehiclesEmployee Vehicles 154 0.02 0.01 146 Total 154 0.02 0.01 146

Total 140 0.02 0.01 metric tons per yearGWP 1 310 21Total 140 7 0 MTCO2E per yearTotal 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 MMTCO2E per year






Notes:



Motor vehicle carbon dioxide and natural gas carbon dioxide values are from the URBEMIS2007 output.

Mobile Emissions - Methane Page 1Mid Valley Agricultural Services 9-Nov-09Prepared by Michael Brandman Associates

Vehicle Miles Traveled 911Vehicle Trips 62

Starting Emissions 0.01 lbs/day 0.0000 tons/day 0.00 tons/yearRunning Emissions 0.06 lbs/day 0.0000 tons/day 0.01 tons/yearTotal 0.07 lbs/day 0.0000 tons/day 0.01 tons/year

Vehicle PercentagesVehicle Type Percent Non-Catalyst Catalyst DieselLight Auto 48.0 0.7 99.1 0.2Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 18.0 2.1 91.7 6.2Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 22.0 1.0 98.5 0.5Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 12.0 0.9 99.1 0.0Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 0.0 0.0 70.0 30.0Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0Urban Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0Motorcycle 0.0 59.5 40.5 0.0School Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0Motor Home 0.0 0.0 88.9 11.1

Running Emission Factors (g/mile)Vehicle Type Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst DieselLight Auto LDA 0.3250 0.0250 0.0080Light Truck < 3,750 lbs LDT1 0.3310 0.0330 0.0040Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 LDT2 0.3300 0.0300 0.0060Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 MDV 0.3910 0.0370 0.0030Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 LHDT1 0.2500 0.0280 0.0070Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 LHDT2 0.2500 0.0330 0.0100Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 MHDT 0.3210 0.0720 0.0100Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 HHDT 0.7950 0.2250 0.0480Line Haul > 60,000 lbs LHV 0.7950 0.2250 0.0480Urban Bus UB 0.3680 0.0920 0.0280Motorcycle MCY 0.2230 0.1620 0.0000School Bus SBUS 0.3210 0.1260 0.0130Motor Home MH 0.3210 0.0560 0.0050

Running Emissions (pounds per day)Vehicle Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst DieselLight Auto 0.00 0.02 0.00Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 0.00 0.01 0.00Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 0.00 0.01 0.00Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 0.00 0.01 0.00Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 0.00 0.00 0.00Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.00 0.00 0.00Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 0.00 0.00 0.00Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.00 0.00 0.00Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00Urban Bus 0.00 0.00 0.00Motorcycle 0.00 0.00 0.00School Bus 0.00 0.00 0.00Motor Home 0.00 0.00 0.00Total 0.01 0.06 0.00

Mobile Emissions - Methane Page 2Mid Valley Agricultural ServicesPrepared by Michael Brandman Associates

Total Trips 62

Starting Emission Factors (g/start)Vehicle Type Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst DieselLight Auto LDA 0.384 0.032 0Light Truck < 3,750 lbs LDT1 0.381 0.038 0.000Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 LDT2 0.377 0.034 0.000Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 MDV 0.463 0.044 0.000Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 LHDT1 0.615 0.106 0.000Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 LHDT2 0.615 0.123 0.000Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 MHDT 0.923 0.277 0.000Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 HHDT 1.756 0.829 0.000Line Haul > 60,000 lbs LHV 1.756 0.829 0.000Urban Bus UB 1.127 0.314 0.000Motorcycle MCY 0.183 0.155 0.000School Bus SBUS 0.923 0.313 0.000Motor Home MH 0.923 0.200 0.000

Trip DistributionVehicle Type Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst DieselLight Auto LDA 0.2 29.5 0.1Light Truck < 3,750 lbs LDT1 0.2 10.2 0.7Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 LDT2 0.1 13.4 0.1Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 MDV 0.1 7.4 0.0Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 LHDT1 0.0 0.0 0.0Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 LHDT2 0.0 0.0 0.0Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 MHDT 0.0 0.0 0.0Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 HHDT 0.0 0.0 0.0Line Haul > 60,000 lbs LHV 0.0 0.0 0.0Urban Bus UB 0.0 0.0 0.0Motorcycle MCY 0.0 0.0 0.0School Bus SBUS 0.0 0.0 0.0Motor Home MH 0.0 0.0 0.0Total 0.6 60.5 0.8

Starting Emissions (pounds per day)Vehicle Type Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst DieselLight Auto LDA 0.0002 0.0021 0.0000Light Truck < 3,750 lbs LDT1 0.0002 0.0009 0.0000Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 LDT2 0.0001 0.0010 0.0000Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 MDV 0.0001 0.0007 0.0000Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 LHDT1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 LHDT2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 MHDT 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 HHDT 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Line Haul > 60,000 lbs LHV 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Urban Bus UB 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Motorcycle MCY 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000School Bus SBUS 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Motor Home MH 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0006 0.0047 0.0000

- Source of vehicle percentages: URBEMIS.- Source of emission factors: EMFAC2007, Statewide average, year 2010, temperature 60F, relative humidity 50%

Title : Methane Greenhouse Gas SpreadsheetVersion : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006Run Date : 2009/07/22 11:15:04Scen Year: 2010 -- All model years in the range 1966 to 2010 selectedSeason : AnnualArea : Statewide totals*****************************************************************************************Year: 2010 -- Model Yea 1966 to 2010 Inclusive -- Annual Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006

State Average State Average State Average

Table 1: Running Exhaust Emissions (grams/mile)Pollutant Name: Methane Temperature Relative Humidity: 50%Speed LDA LDA LDA LDA LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 MDV MDV MDV MDV LHD1 LHD1 LHD1 LHD1 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 MHD MHD MHD MHD HHD HHD HHD HHD OBUS OBUS OBUS OBUS UBUS UBUS UBUS UBUS MCY MCY MCY MCY SBUS SBUS SBUSSBUS MH MH MH MH ALL ALL ALL ALL MPH NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL

30 0.33 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.33 0.03 0 0.04 0.33 0.03 0.01 0.031 0.391 0.037 0 0.039 0.25 0.028 0.007 0.024 0.25 0.033 0.01 0.023 0.321 0.072 0 0.021 0.795 0.225 0 0.053 0.321 0.08 0.009 0.04 0.368 0.092 0.028 0.045 0.223 0.162 0 0.2 0.321 0.126 0.01 0.033 0.321 0.056 0.01 0.06 0.283 0.03 0.03 0.033

Table 2: Starting Emissions (grams/trip)Pollutant Name: Methane Temperature Relative Humidity: ALLTime LDA LDA LDA LDA LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 MDV MDV MDV MDV LHD1 LHD1 LHD1 LHD1 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 MHD MHD MHD MHD HHD HHD HHD HHD OBUS OBUS OBUS OBUS UBUS UBUS UBUS UBUS MCY MCY MCY MCY SBUS SBUS SBUSSBUS MH MH MH MH ALL ALL ALL ALL min NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL

5 0.31 0 0 0.01 0.31 0.01 0 0.01 0.3 0 0 0.006 0.373 0.005 0 0.008 0.495 0.013 0 0.016 0.495 0.016 0 0.017 0.743 0.036 0 0.043 1.414 0.107 0 0.093 0.743 0.03 0 0.035 0.907 0.041 0 0.016 0.147 0.02 0 0.106 0.743 0.041 0 0.02 0.743 0.026 0 0.056 0.337 0.006 0 0.01110 0.31 0.01 0 0.01 0.3 0.01 0 0.01 0.3 0.01 0 0.01 0.37 0.011 0 0.013 0.491 0.026 0 0.027 0.491 0.031 0 0.028 0.737 0.07 0 0.052 1.402 0.209 0 0.119 0.737 0.058 0 0.052 0.899 0.079 0 0.025 0.146 0.039 0 0.111 0.737 0.079 0 0.024 0.737 0.051 0 0.076 0.334 0.012 0 0.01720 0.31 0.02 0 0.02 0.31 0.02 0 0.02 0.3 0.02 0 0.017 0.373 0.02 0 0.022 0.496 0.05 0 0.048 0.496 0.058 0 0.048 0.744 0.133 0 0.07 1.415 0.397 0 0.168 0.744 0.111 0 0.083 0.908 0.15 0 0.041 0.147 0.074 0 0.124 0.744 0.15 0 0.033 0.744 0.096 0 0.115 0.337 0.022 0 0.02630 0.32 0.02 0 0.02 0.32 0.03 0 0.03 0.32 0.02 0 0.024 0.39 0.029 0 0.031 0.518 0.071 0 0.067 0.518 0.083 0 0.066 0.777 0.188 0 0.087 1.478 0.563 0 0.214 0.777 0.157 0 0.111 0.949 0.213 0 0.055 0.154 0.106 0 0.138 0.777 0.212 0 0.041 0.777 0.136 0 0.15 0.352 0.032 0 0.03540 0.35 0.03 0 0.03 0.35 0.03 0 0.04 0.34 0.03 0 0.031 0.42 0.037 0 0.039 0.558 0.09 0 0.084 0.558 0.105 0 0.082 0.837 0.236 0 0.103 1.592 0.707 0 0.256 0.837 0.197 0 0.136 1.022 0.267 0 0.068 0.166 0.133 0 0.155 0.837 0.267 0 0.049 0.837 0.171 0 0.182 0.379 0.04 0 0.04450 0.38 0.03 0 0.04 0.38 0.04 0 0.04 0.38 0.03 0 0.036 0.463 0.044 0 0.046 0.615 0.106 0 0.099 0.615 0.123 0 0.097 0.923 0.277 0 0.118 1.756 0.829 0 0.295 0.923 0.231 0 0.158 1.127 0.314 0 0.08 0.183 0.155 0 0.174 0.923 0.313 0 0.056 0.923 0.2 0 0.211 0.418 0.047 0 0.05160 0.4 0.04 0 0.04 0.4 0.04 0 0.05 0.39 0.04 0 0.041 0.482 0.05 0 0.053 0.64 0.12 0 0.111 0.64 0.139 0 0.109 0.96 0.311 0 0.128 1.826 0.929 0 0.324 0.96 0.259 0 0.176 1.172 0.352 0 0.089 0.19 0.174 0 0.185 0.96 0.351 0 0.061 0.96 0.224 0 0.234 0.435 0.054 0 0.057

120 0.32 0.05 0 0.05 0.32 0.05 0 0.05 0.32 0.05 0 0.05 0.387 0.065 0 0.066 0.514 0.125 0 0.115 0.514 0.138 0 0.107 0.771 0.27 0 0.109 1.467 0.822 0 0.28 0.771 0.239 0 0.159 0.941 0.318 0 0.079 0.153 0.16 0 0.155 0.771 0.303 0 0.052 0.771 0.168 0 0.177 0.349 0.062 0 0.063180 0.35 0.04 0 0.04 0.35 0.04 0 0.05 0.34 0.04 0 0.041 0.421 0.052 0 0.054 0.56 0.125 0 0.115 0.56 0.141 0 0.109 0.839 0.287 0 0.117 1.597 0.872 0 0.299 0.839 0.254 0 0.17 1.025 0.338 0 0.084 0.166 0.143 0 0.159 0.839 0.322 0 0.055 0.839 0.178 0 0.189 0.38 0.054 0 0.056240 0.38 0.04 0 0.04 0.38 0.05 0 0.05 0.37 0.04 0 0.044 0.456 0.055 0 0.057 0.605 0.132 0 0.122 0.605 0.149 0 0.116 0.908 0.303 0 0.124 1.727 0.921 0 0.318 0.908 0.268 0 0.18 1.108 0.357 0 0.089 0.18 0.151 0 0.171 0.908 0.34 0 0.059 0.908 0.188 0 0.201 0.411 0.057 0 0.059300 0.41 0.04 0 0.04 0.4 0.05 0 0.05 0.4 0.04 0 0.046 0.49 0.058 0 0.06 0.651 0.139 0 0.128 0.651 0.157 0 0.122 0.976 0.318 0 0.131 1.857 0.968 0 0.336 0.976 0.282 0 0.189 1.192 0.375 0 0.094 0.193 0.159 0 0.182 0.976 0.357 0 0.062 0.976 0.198 0 0.212 0.442 0.06 0 0.063360 0.44 0.04 0 0.05 0.43 0.05 0 0.05 0.43 0.05 0 0.048 0.524 0.061 0 0.064 0.696 0.146 0 0.135 0.696 0.165 0 0.128 1.044 0.333 0 0.139 1.987 1.013 0 0.353 1.044 0.295 0 0.199 1.275 0.392 0 0.099 0.207 0.166 0 0.194 1.044 0.374 0 0.066 1.044 0.207 0 0.223 0.473 0.063 0 0.066420 0.46 0.04 0 0.05 0.46 0.05 0 0.06 0.45 0.05 0 0.051 0.558 0.064 0 0.067 0.742 0.153 0 0.141 0.742 0.172 0 0.134 1.112 0.348 0 0.146 2.117 1.057 0 0.371 1.112 0.308 0 0.208 1.358 0.409 0 0.103 0.22 0.174 0 0.205 1.112 0.39 0 0.069 1.112 0.216 0 0.234 0.504 0.065 0 0.069480 0.49 0.05 0 0.05 0.49 0.05 0 0.06 0.48 0.05 0 0.053 0.593 0.067 0 0.07 0.787 0.159 0 0.147 0.787 0.179 0 0.14 1.181 0.362 0 0.153 2.246 1.099 0 0.388 1.181 0.32 0 0.217 1.442 0.426 0 0.107 0.234 0.18 0 0.217 1.181 0.405 0 0.072 1.181 0.225 0 0.244 0.535 0.068 0 0.072540 0.52 0.05 0 0.05 0.52 0.06 0 0.06 0.51 0.05 0 0.055 0.627 0.07 0 0.073 0.833 0.166 0 0.153 0.833 0.186 0 0.145 1.249 0.375 0 0.159 2.376 1.14 0 0.404 1.249 0.332 0 0.225 1.525 0.442 0 0.112 0.247 0.187 0 0.228 1.249 0.42 0 0.075 1.249 0.233 0 0.254 0.566 0.071 0 0.075600 0.55 0.05 0 0.05 0.54 0.06 0 0.06 0.54 0.06 0 0.057 0.661 0.072 0 0.076 0.878 0.172 0 0.159 0.878 0.193 0 0.151 1.317 0.388 0 0.166 2.506 1.179 0 0.42 1.317 0.343 0 0.234 1.608 0.457 0 0.116 0.261 0.194 0 0.239 1.317 0.435 0 0.078 1.317 0.241 0 0.264 0.597 0.074 0 0.078660 0.58 0.05 0 0.06 0.57 0.06 0 0.07 0.57 0.06 0 0.059 0.695 0.075 0 0.078 0.924 0.178 0 0.165 0.924 0.199 0 0.156 1.386 0.4 0 0.172 2.636 1.216 0 0.436 1.386 0.354 0 0.242 1.692 0.471 0 0.12 0.275 0.2 0 0.25 1.386 0.449 0 0.082 1.386 0.249 0 0.274 0.628 0.076 0 0.081720 0.61 0.05 0 0.06 0.6 0.06 0 0.07 0.59 0.06 0 0.061 0.73 0.078 0 0.081 0.969 0.184 0 0.17 0.969 0.206 0 0.161 1.454 0.412 0 0.179 2.766 1.252 0 0.451 1.454 0.365 0 0.25 1.775 0.485 0 0.123 0.288 0.206 0 0.261 1.454 0.462 0 0.084 1.454 0.256 0 0.283 0.659 0.079 0 0.084

Table 4: Hot Soak Emissions (grams/trip)Pollutant Name: Methane Temperature Relative Humidity: ALLTime LDA LDA LDA LDA LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 MDV MDV MDV MDV LHD1 LHD1 LHD1 LHD1 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 MHD MHD MHD MHD HHD HHD HHD HHD OBUS OBUS OBUS OBUS UBUS UBUS UBUS UBUS MCY MCY MCY MCY SBUS SBUS SBUSSBUS MH MH MH MH ALL ALL ALL ALL min NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 040 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hot soak results are scaled to reflect zero emissions for trip lengths of less than 5 minutes (about 25% of in-use trips).

Table 5a: Partial Day Diurnal Loss Emissions (grams/hour)Pollutant Name: Methane Temperature Relative Humidity: ALLTemp LDA LDA LDA LDA LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 MDV MDV MDV MDV LHD1 LHD1 LHD1 LHD1 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 MHD MHD MHD MHD HHD HHD HHD HHD OBUS OBUS OBUS OBUS UBUS UBUS UBUS UBUS MCY MCY MCY MCY SBUS SBUS SBUSSBUS MH MH MH MH ALL ALL ALL ALLdegF NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL

60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 5b: Multi-Day Diurnal Loss Emissions (grams/hour)Pollutant Name: Methane Temperature Relative Humidity: ALLTemp LDA LDA LDA LDA LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 MDV MDV MDV MDV LHD1 LHD1 LHD1 LHD1 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 MHD MHD MHD MHD HHD HHD HHD HHD OBUS OBUS OBUS OBUS UBUS UBUS UBUS UBUS MCY MCY MCY MCY SBUS SBUS SBUSSBUS MH MH MH MH ALL ALL ALL ALLdegF NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL

60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 6a: Partial Day Resting Loss Emissions (grams/hour)Pollutant Name: Methane Temperature Relative Humidity: ALLTemp LDA LDA LDA LDA LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 MDV MDV MDV MDV LHD1 LHD1 LHD1 LHD1 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 MHD MHD MHD MHD HHD HHD HHD HHD OBUS OBUS OBUS OBUS UBUS UBUS UBUS UBUS MCY MCY MCY MCY SBUS SBUS SBUSSBUS MH MH MH MH ALL ALL ALL ALLdegF NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL

60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 6b: Multi-Day Resting Loss Emissions (grams/hour)Pollutant Name: Methane Temperature Relative Humidity: ALLTemp LDA LDA LDA LDA LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 MDV MDV MDV MDV LHD1 LHD1 LHD1 LHD1 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 MHD MHD MHD MHD HHD HHD HHD HHD OBUS OBUS OBUS OBUS UBUS UBUS UBUS UBUS MCY MCY MCY MCY SBUS SBUS SBUSSBUS MH MH MH MH ALL ALL ALL ALLdegF NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL

60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 8: Evaporative Running Loss Emissions (grams/minute)Pollutant Name: Methane Temperature Relative Humidity: ALLTime LDA LDA LDA LDA LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 MDV MDV MDV MDV LHD1 LHD1 LHD1 LHD1 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 MHD MHD MHD MHD HHD HHD HHD HHD OBUS OBUS OBUS OBUS UBUS UBUS UBUS UBUS MCY MCY MCY MCY SBUS SBUS SBUSSBUS MH MH MH MH ALL ALL ALL ALL min NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 015 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 035 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 040 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 045 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mobile Emissions - Nitrous Oxide Page 1Mid Valley Agricultural Services 9-Nov-09Prepared by Michael Brandman Associates

Vehicle Miles Traveled 911





Mobile Emissions - Nitrous Oxide Page 2Mid Valley Agricultural ServicesPrepared by Michael Brandman Associates

Total Trips 62

Starting Emission Factors (g/start)Vehicle Type Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst DieselLight Auto LDA 0.028 0.072 0.000Light Truck < 3,750 lbs LDT1 0.032 0.093 -0.001Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 LDT2 0.032 0.093 -0.001Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 MDV 0.032 0.093 -0.001Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 LHDT1 0.070 0.194 -0.002Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 LHDT2 0.070 0.194 -0.002Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 MHDT 0.070 0.194 -0.002Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 HHDT 0.070 0.194 -0.002Line Haul > 60,000 lbs LHV 0.070 0.194 -0.002Urban Bus UB 0.070 0.194 -0.002Motorcycle MCY 0.012 0.012 0.012School Bus SBUS 0.070 0.194 -0.002Motor Home MH 0.070 0.194 -0.002



- Source of running emission factors: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Climate Leaders Greenhouse Gas Inventory Protocol, Core Module Guidance. Direct Emissions from Mobile Combustion Sources. October 2004.- Source of vehicle percentages: URBEMIS default values.- Source of starting emissions: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Prepared by ICF Consulting. EPA420-P-04-016. Update of Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emission Factors for On-Highway Vehicles. November 2004.

Summary of Operational Greenhouse GasesProject: Mid Valley Agricultural ServicesPrepared by: Michael Brandman AssociatesPrepared on: 5-Feb-10Year of analysis: 2012


Nitrous Oxide Methane

Metric Tons CO2e

Motor vehiclesProject Truck Trips 200 0.005 0.005 183 Total 200 0.005 0.005 183

Total 181 0.005 0.005 metric tons per yearGWP 1 310 21Total 181 1 0 MTCO2E per yearTotal 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 MMTCO2E per year






Notes:



Motor vehicle carbon dioxide and natural gas carbon dioxide values are from the URBEMIS2007 output.

Mobile Emissions - Methane Page 1Mid Valley Agricultural Services 5-Feb-10Prepared by Michael Brandman Associates

Vehicle Miles Traveled 272Vehicle Trips 5





Mobile Emissions - Methane Page 2Mid Valley Agricultural ServicesPrepared by Michael Brandman Associates

Total Trips 5

Starting Emission Factors (g/start)Vehicle Type Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst DieselLight Auto LDA 0.384 0.032 0Light Truck < 3,750 lbs LDT1 0.381 0.038 0.000Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 LDT2 0.377 0.034 0.000Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 MDV 0.463 0.044 0.000Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 LHDT1 0.615 0.106 0.000Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 LHDT2 0.615 0.123 0.000Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 MHDT 0.923 0.277 0.000Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 HHDT 1.756 0.829 0.000Line Haul > 60,000 lbs LHV 1.756 0.829 0.000Urban Bus UB 1.127 0.314 0.000Motorcycle MCY 0.183 0.155 0.000School Bus SBUS 0.923 0.313 0.000Motor Home MH 0.923 0.200 0.000



- Source of vehicle percentages: URBEMIS.- Source of emission factors: EMFAC2007, Statewide average, year 2010, temperature 60F, relative humidity 50%

Title : Methane Greenhouse Gas SpreadsheetVersion : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006Run Date : 2009/07/22 11:15:04Scen Year: 2010 -- All model years in the range 1966 to 2010 selectedSeason : AnnualArea : Statewide totals*****************************************************************************************Year: 2010 -- Model Yea 1966 to 2010 Inclusive -- Annual Emfac2007 Emission Factors: V2.3 Nov 1 2006

State Average State Average State Average

Table 1: Running Exhaust Emissions (grams/mile)Pollutant Name: Methane Temperature Relative Humidity: 50%Speed LDA LDA LDA LDA LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 MDV MDV MDV MDV LHD1 LHD1 LHD1 LHD1 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 MHD MHD MHD MHD HHD HHD HHD HHD OBUS OBUS OBUS OBUS UBUS UBUS UBUS UBUS MCY MCY MCY MCY SBUS SBUS SBUSSBUS MH MH MH MH ALL ALL ALL ALL MPH NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL

30 0.33 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.33 0.03 0 0.04 0.33 0.03 0.01 0.031 0.391 0.037 0 0.039 0.25 0.028 0.007 0.024 0.25 0.033 0.01 0.023 0.321 0.072 0 0.021 0.795 0.225 0 0.053 0.321 0.08 0.009 0.04 0.368 0.092 0.028 0.045 0.223 0.162 0 0.2 0.321 0.126 0.01 0.033 0.321 0.056 0.01 0.06 0.283 0.03 0.03 0.033

Table 2: Starting Emissions (grams/trip)Pollutant Name: Methane Temperature Relative Humidity: ALLTime LDA LDA LDA LDA LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 MDV MDV MDV MDV LHD1 LHD1 LHD1 LHD1 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 MHD MHD MHD MHD HHD HHD HHD HHD OBUS OBUS OBUS OBUS UBUS UBUS UBUS UBUS MCY MCY MCY MCY SBUS SBUS SBUSSBUS MH MH MH MH ALL ALL ALL ALL min NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL

5 0.31 0 0 0.01 0.31 0.01 0 0.01 0.3 0 0 0.006 0.373 0.005 0 0.008 0.495 0.013 0 0.016 0.495 0.016 0 0.017 0.743 0.036 0 0.043 1.414 0.107 0 0.093 0.743 0.03 0 0.035 0.907 0.041 0 0.016 0.147 0.02 0 0.106 0.743 0.041 0 0.02 0.743 0.026 0 0.056 0.337 0.006 0 0.01110 0.31 0.01 0 0.01 0.3 0.01 0 0.01 0.3 0.01 0 0.01 0.37 0.011 0 0.013 0.491 0.026 0 0.027 0.491 0.031 0 0.028 0.737 0.07 0 0.052 1.402 0.209 0 0.119 0.737 0.058 0 0.052 0.899 0.079 0 0.025 0.146 0.039 0 0.111 0.737 0.079 0 0.024 0.737 0.051 0 0.076 0.334 0.012 0 0.01720 0.31 0.02 0 0.02 0.31 0.02 0 0.02 0.3 0.02 0 0.017 0.373 0.02 0 0.022 0.496 0.05 0 0.048 0.496 0.058 0 0.048 0.744 0.133 0 0.07 1.415 0.397 0 0.168 0.744 0.111 0 0.083 0.908 0.15 0 0.041 0.147 0.074 0 0.124 0.744 0.15 0 0.033 0.744 0.096 0 0.115 0.337 0.022 0 0.02630 0.32 0.02 0 0.02 0.32 0.03 0 0.03 0.32 0.02 0 0.024 0.39 0.029 0 0.031 0.518 0.071 0 0.067 0.518 0.083 0 0.066 0.777 0.188 0 0.087 1.478 0.563 0 0.214 0.777 0.157 0 0.111 0.949 0.213 0 0.055 0.154 0.106 0 0.138 0.777 0.212 0 0.041 0.777 0.136 0 0.15 0.352 0.032 0 0.03540 0.35 0.03 0 0.03 0.35 0.03 0 0.04 0.34 0.03 0 0.031 0.42 0.037 0 0.039 0.558 0.09 0 0.084 0.558 0.105 0 0.082 0.837 0.236 0 0.103 1.592 0.707 0 0.256 0.837 0.197 0 0.136 1.022 0.267 0 0.068 0.166 0.133 0 0.155 0.837 0.267 0 0.049 0.837 0.171 0 0.182 0.379 0.04 0 0.04450 0.38 0.03 0 0.04 0.38 0.04 0 0.04 0.38 0.03 0 0.036 0.463 0.044 0 0.046 0.615 0.106 0 0.099 0.615 0.123 0 0.097 0.923 0.277 0 0.118 1.756 0.829 0 0.295 0.923 0.231 0 0.158 1.127 0.314 0 0.08 0.183 0.155 0 0.174 0.923 0.313 0 0.056 0.923 0.2 0 0.211 0.418 0.047 0 0.05160 0.4 0.04 0 0.04 0.4 0.04 0 0.05 0.39 0.04 0 0.041 0.482 0.05 0 0.053 0.64 0.12 0 0.111 0.64 0.139 0 0.109 0.96 0.311 0 0.128 1.826 0.929 0 0.324 0.96 0.259 0 0.176 1.172 0.352 0 0.089 0.19 0.174 0 0.185 0.96 0.351 0 0.061 0.96 0.224 0 0.234 0.435 0.054 0 0.057

120 0.32 0.05 0 0.05 0.32 0.05 0 0.05 0.32 0.05 0 0.05 0.387 0.065 0 0.066 0.514 0.125 0 0.115 0.514 0.138 0 0.107 0.771 0.27 0 0.109 1.467 0.822 0 0.28 0.771 0.239 0 0.159 0.941 0.318 0 0.079 0.153 0.16 0 0.155 0.771 0.303 0 0.052 0.771 0.168 0 0.177 0.349 0.062 0 0.063180 0.35 0.04 0 0.04 0.35 0.04 0 0.05 0.34 0.04 0 0.041 0.421 0.052 0 0.054 0.56 0.125 0 0.115 0.56 0.141 0 0.109 0.839 0.287 0 0.117 1.597 0.872 0 0.299 0.839 0.254 0 0.17 1.025 0.338 0 0.084 0.166 0.143 0 0.159 0.839 0.322 0 0.055 0.839 0.178 0 0.189 0.38 0.054 0 0.056240 0.38 0.04 0 0.04 0.38 0.05 0 0.05 0.37 0.04 0 0.044 0.456 0.055 0 0.057 0.605 0.132 0 0.122 0.605 0.149 0 0.116 0.908 0.303 0 0.124 1.727 0.921 0 0.318 0.908 0.268 0 0.18 1.108 0.357 0 0.089 0.18 0.151 0 0.171 0.908 0.34 0 0.059 0.908 0.188 0 0.201 0.411 0.057 0 0.059300 0.41 0.04 0 0.04 0.4 0.05 0 0.05 0.4 0.04 0 0.046 0.49 0.058 0 0.06 0.651 0.139 0 0.128 0.651 0.157 0 0.122 0.976 0.318 0 0.131 1.857 0.968 0 0.336 0.976 0.282 0 0.189 1.192 0.375 0 0.094 0.193 0.159 0 0.182 0.976 0.357 0 0.062 0.976 0.198 0 0.212 0.442 0.06 0 0.063360 0.44 0.04 0 0.05 0.43 0.05 0 0.05 0.43 0.05 0 0.048 0.524 0.061 0 0.064 0.696 0.146 0 0.135 0.696 0.165 0 0.128 1.044 0.333 0 0.139 1.987 1.013 0 0.353 1.044 0.295 0 0.199 1.275 0.392 0 0.099 0.207 0.166 0 0.194 1.044 0.374 0 0.066 1.044 0.207 0 0.223 0.473 0.063 0 0.066420 0.46 0.04 0 0.05 0.46 0.05 0 0.06 0.45 0.05 0 0.051 0.558 0.064 0 0.067 0.742 0.153 0 0.141 0.742 0.172 0 0.134 1.112 0.348 0 0.146 2.117 1.057 0 0.371 1.112 0.308 0 0.208 1.358 0.409 0 0.103 0.22 0.174 0 0.205 1.112 0.39 0 0.069 1.112 0.216 0 0.234 0.504 0.065 0 0.069480 0.49 0.05 0 0.05 0.49 0.05 0 0.06 0.48 0.05 0 0.053 0.593 0.067 0 0.07 0.787 0.159 0 0.147 0.787 0.179 0 0.14 1.181 0.362 0 0.153 2.246 1.099 0 0.388 1.181 0.32 0 0.217 1.442 0.426 0 0.107 0.234 0.18 0 0.217 1.181 0.405 0 0.072 1.181 0.225 0 0.244 0.535 0.068 0 0.072540 0.52 0.05 0 0.05 0.52 0.06 0 0.06 0.51 0.05 0 0.055 0.627 0.07 0 0.073 0.833 0.166 0 0.153 0.833 0.186 0 0.145 1.249 0.375 0 0.159 2.376 1.14 0 0.404 1.249 0.332 0 0.225 1.525 0.442 0 0.112 0.247 0.187 0 0.228 1.249 0.42 0 0.075 1.249 0.233 0 0.254 0.566 0.071 0 0.075600 0.55 0.05 0 0.05 0.54 0.06 0 0.06 0.54 0.06 0 0.057 0.661 0.072 0 0.076 0.878 0.172 0 0.159 0.878 0.193 0 0.151 1.317 0.388 0 0.166 2.506 1.179 0 0.42 1.317 0.343 0 0.234 1.608 0.457 0 0.116 0.261 0.194 0 0.239 1.317 0.435 0 0.078 1.317 0.241 0 0.264 0.597 0.074 0 0.078660 0.58 0.05 0 0.06 0.57 0.06 0 0.07 0.57 0.06 0 0.059 0.695 0.075 0 0.078 0.924 0.178 0 0.165 0.924 0.199 0 0.156 1.386 0.4 0 0.172 2.636 1.216 0 0.436 1.386 0.354 0 0.242 1.692 0.471 0 0.12 0.275 0.2 0 0.25 1.386 0.449 0 0.082 1.386 0.249 0 0.274 0.628 0.076 0 0.081720 0.61 0.05 0 0.06 0.6 0.06 0 0.07 0.59 0.06 0 0.061 0.73 0.078 0 0.081 0.969 0.184 0 0.17 0.969 0.206 0 0.161 1.454 0.412 0 0.179 2.766 1.252 0 0.451 1.454 0.365 0 0.25 1.775 0.485 0 0.123 0.288 0.206 0 0.261 1.454 0.462 0 0.084 1.454 0.256 0 0.283 0.659 0.079 0 0.084

Table 4: Hot Soak Emissions (grams/trip)Pollutant Name: Methane Temperature Relative Humidity: ALLTime LDA LDA LDA LDA LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 MDV MDV MDV MDV LHD1 LHD1 LHD1 LHD1 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 MHD MHD MHD MHD HHD HHD HHD HHD OBUS OBUS OBUS OBUS UBUS UBUS UBUS UBUS MCY MCY MCY MCY SBUS SBUS SBUSSBUS MH MH MH MH ALL ALL ALL ALL min NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 040 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hot soak results are scaled to reflect zero emissions for trip lengths of less than 5 minutes (about 25% of in-use trips).

Table 5a: Partial Day Diurnal Loss Emissions (grams/hour)Pollutant Name: Methane Temperature Relative Humidity: ALLTemp LDA LDA LDA LDA LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 MDV MDV MDV MDV LHD1 LHD1 LHD1 LHD1 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 MHD MHD MHD MHD HHD HHD HHD HHD OBUS OBUS OBUS OBUS UBUS UBUS UBUS UBUS MCY MCY MCY MCY SBUS SBUS SBUSSBUS MH MH MH MH ALL ALL ALL ALLdegF NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL

60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 5b: Multi-Day Diurnal Loss Emissions (grams/hour)Pollutant Name: Methane Temperature Relative Humidity: ALLTemp LDA LDA LDA LDA LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 MDV MDV MDV MDV LHD1 LHD1 LHD1 LHD1 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 MHD MHD MHD MHD HHD HHD HHD HHD OBUS OBUS OBUS OBUS UBUS UBUS UBUS UBUS MCY MCY MCY MCY SBUS SBUS SBUSSBUS MH MH MH MH ALL ALL ALL ALLdegF NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL

60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 6a: Partial Day Resting Loss Emissions (grams/hour)Pollutant Name: Methane Temperature Relative Humidity: ALLTemp LDA LDA LDA LDA LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 MDV MDV MDV MDV LHD1 LHD1 LHD1 LHD1 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 MHD MHD MHD MHD HHD HHD HHD HHD OBUS OBUS OBUS OBUS UBUS UBUS UBUS UBUS MCY MCY MCY MCY SBUS SBUS SBUSSBUS MH MH MH MH ALL ALL ALL ALLdegF NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL

60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 6b: Multi-Day Resting Loss Emissions (grams/hour)Pollutant Name: Methane Temperature Relative Humidity: ALLTemp LDA LDA LDA LDA LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 MDV MDV MDV MDV LHD1 LHD1 LHD1 LHD1 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 MHD MHD MHD MHD HHD HHD HHD HHD OBUS OBUS OBUS OBUS UBUS UBUS UBUS UBUS MCY MCY MCY MCY SBUS SBUS SBUSSBUS MH MH MH MH ALL ALL ALL ALLdegF NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL

60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 8: Evaporative Running Loss Emissions (grams/minute)Pollutant Name: Methane Temperature Relative Humidity: ALLTime LDA LDA LDA LDA LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT1 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 LDT2 MDV MDV MDV MDV LHD1 LHD1 LHD1 LHD1 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 LHD2 MHD MHD MHD MHD HHD HHD HHD HHD OBUS OBUS OBUS OBUS UBUS UBUS UBUS UBUS MCY MCY MCY MCY SBUS SBUS SBUSSBUS MH MH MH MH ALL ALL ALL ALL min NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL NCAT CAT DSL ALL

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 015 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 035 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 040 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 045 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mobile Emissions - Nitrous Oxide Page 1Mid Valley Agricultural Services 5-Feb-10Prepared by Michael Brandman Associates

Vehicle Miles Traveled 272





Mobile Emissions - Nitrous Oxide Page 2Mid Valley Agricultural ServicesPrepared by Michael Brandman Associates

Total Trips 5

Starting Emission Factors (g/start)Vehicle Type Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst DieselLight Auto LDA 0.028 0.072 0.000Light Truck < 3,750 lbs LDT1 0.032 0.093 -0.001Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 LDT2 0.032 0.093 -0.001Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 MDV 0.032 0.093 -0.001Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 LHDT1 0.070 0.194 -0.002Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 LHDT2 0.070 0.194 -0.002Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 MHDT 0.070 0.194 -0.002Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 HHDT 0.070 0.194 -0.002Line Haul > 60,000 lbs LHV 0.070 0.194 -0.002Urban Bus UB 0.070 0.194 -0.002Motorcycle MCY 0.012 0.012 0.012School Bus SBUS 0.070 0.194 -0.002Motor Home MH 0.070 0.194 -0.002



- Source of running emission factors: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Climate Leaders Greenhouse Gas Inventory Protocol, Core Module Guidance. Direct Emissions from Mobile Combustion Sources. October 2004.- Source of vehicle percentages: URBEMIS default values.- Source of starting emissions: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Prepared by ICF Consulting. EPA420-P-04-016. Update of Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emission Factors for On-Highway Vehicles. November 2004.



Appendix C: Biological Resources Information



Attachment A: California Department of Fish and Game

Natural Diversity Database

State StatusFederal StatusScientific Name/Common Name Element Code SRankGRank

Natural Diversity DatabaseCalifornia Department of Fish and Game

Selected Elements by Scientific Name - PortraitMid Valley Agricultural Services Project (MBA 1604.0035)9-Quad Query Results (Cressey)

CDFG orCNPS

SCActinemys marmoratawestern pond turtle

ARAAD02030 S3G3G41

SCAgelaius tricolortricolored blackbird

ABPBXB0020 S2G2G32

SCunknown code...ThreatenedAmbystoma californienseCalifornia tiger salamander

AAAAA01180 S2S3G2G33

SCAnniella pulchra pulchrasilvery legless lizard

ARACC01012 S3G3G4T3T4Q

4

SCAntrozous palliduspallid bat

AMACC10010 S3G55

Ardea albagreat egret

ABNGA04040 S4G56

Ardea herodiasgreat blue heron

ABNGA04010 S4G57

1B.2Astragalus tener var. teneralkali milk-vetch

PDFAB0F8R1 S1.1G1T18

SCAthene cuniculariaburrowing owl

ABNSB10010 S2G49

1B.2Atriplex cordulataheartscale

PDCHE040B0 S2.2?G2?10

1B.2Atriplex depressabrittlescale

PDCHE042L0 S2.2G2Q11

1B.2Atriplex joaquinianaSan Joaquin spearscale

PDCHE041F3 S2G212

1B.1Atriplex minusculalesser saltscale

PDCHE042M0 S1.1G113

1B.2Atriplex persistensvernal pool smallscale

PDCHE042P0 S2.2G214

EndangeredBranchinecta conservatioConservancy fairy shrimp

ICBRA03010 S1G115

EndangeredBranchinecta longiantennalonghorn fairy shrimp

ICBRA03020 S1G116

ThreatenedBranchinecta lynchivernal pool fairy shrimp

ICBRA03030 S2S3G317

Branchinecta mesovallensismidvalley fairy shrimp

ICBRA03150 S2G218

Buteo regalisferruginous hawk

ABNKC19120 S3S4G419

ThreatenedButeo swainsoniSwainson's hawk

ABNKC19070 S2G520

1B.3Calycadenia hooveriHoover's calycadenia

PDAST1P040 S2.2G221

1B.2EndangeredThreatenedCastilleja campestris ssp. succulentasucculent owl's-clover

PDSCR0D3Z1 S2.2G4?T222

Commercial Version -- Dated August 30, 2009 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1Report Printed on Thursday, October 08, 2009 Information Expires 02/28/2010




CDFG orCNPS

1B.2ThreatenedChamaesyce hooveriHoover's spurge

PDEUP0D150 S2.1G223

SCCharadrius montanusmountain plover

ABNNB03100 S2?G224

ThreatenedDesmocerus californicus dimorphusvalley elderberry longhorn beetle

IICOL48011 S2G3T225

Dipodomys heermanni dixoniMerced kangaroo rat

AMAFD03062 S2S3G3G4T2T326

1B.1EndangeredEryngium racemosumDelta button-celery

PDAPI0Z0S0 S2.1G2Q27

SCEumops perotis californicuswestern mastiff bat

AMACD02011 S3?G5T428

EndangeredDelistedHaliaeetus leucocephalusbald eagle

ABNKC10010 S2G529

SCLasiurus blossevilliiwestern red bat

AMACC05060 S3?G530

Lasiurus cinereushoary bat

AMACC05030 S4?G531

EndangeredLepidurus packardivernal pool tadpole shrimp

ICBRA10010 S2S3G332

Linderiella occidentalisCalifornia linderiella

ICBRA06010 S2S3G333

Lytta molestamolestan blister beetle

IICOL4C030 S2G234

1AMonardella leucocephalaMerced monardella

PDLAM180C0 SHGH35

SCMylopharodon conocephalushardhead

AFCJB25010 S3G336

Myotis yumanensisYuma myotis

AMACC01020 S4?G537

1B.1Navarretia prostrataprostrate vernal pool navarretia

PDPLM0C0Q0 S2.1?G2?38

1B.1EndangeredThreatenedNeostapfia colusanaColusa grass

PMPOA4C010 S3.1G339

Northern Claypan Vernal Pool CTT44120CA S1.1G140

Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool CTT44110CA S3.1G341

1B.1EndangeredThreatenedOrcuttia inaequalisSan Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass

PMPOA4G060 S2.1G242

1B.1EndangeredEndangeredOrcuttia pilosahairy Orcutt grass

PMPOA4G040 S2.1G243

SCPhrynosoma blainvilliicoast horned lizard

ARACF12030 S3S4G4G544

SCSpea hammondiiwestern spadefoot

AAABF02020 S3G345





CDFG orCNPS

SCTaxidea taxusAmerican badger

AMAJF04010 S4G546

1B.1RareEndangeredTuctoria greeneiGreene's tuctoria

PMPOA6N010 S2.2G247

Valley Sacaton Grassland CTT42120CA S1.1G148

ThreatenedEndangeredVulpes macrotis muticaSan Joaquin kit fox

AMAJA03041 S2S3G4T2T349




Attachment B: Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office, Species List

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Sacramento Fish & Wildlife OfficeFederal Endangered and Threatened Species that Occur in

or may be Affected by Projects in the Counties and/orU.S.G.S. 7 1/2 Minute Quads you requested

Document Number: 091008065048Database Last Updated: January 29, 2009

Quad Lists

Listed Species

InvertebratesBranchinecta lynchi

vernal pool fairy shrimp (T)

Desmocerus californicus dimorphusvalley elderberry longhorn beetle (T)

Lepidurus packardivernal pool tadpole shrimp (E)

FishHypomesus transpacificus

delta smelt (T)

Oncorhynchus mykissCentral Valley steelhead (T) (NMFS)Critical habitat, Central Valley steelhead (X) (NMFS)

Oncorhynchus tshawytschaCentral Valley spring-run chinook salmon (T) (NMFS)winter-run chinook salmon, Sacramento River (E) (NMFS)

AmphibiansAmbystoma californiense

California tiger salamander, central population (T)

Rana aurora draytoniiCalifornia red-legged frog (T)

ReptilesGambelia (=Crotaphytus) sila

blunt-nosed leopard lizard (E)

Thamnophis gigasgiant garter snake (T)

PlantsCastilleja campestris ssp. succulenta

succulent (=fleshy) owl's-clover (T)

Quads Containing Listed, Proposed or Candidate Species:CRESSEY (422B)

County ListsNo county species lists requested.

Key:(E) Endangered - Listed as being in danger of extinction.(T) Threatened - Listed as likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.

10/16/2009 Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office Spec…

S:/Projects/…/USFWS_List.htm 1/4

(P) Proposed - Officially proposed in the Federal Register for listing as endangered or threatened.(NMFS) Species under the Jurisdiction of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service.Consult with them directly about these species.Critical Habitat - Area essential to the conservation of a species.(PX) Proposed Critical Habitat - The species is already listed. Critical habitat is being proposed for it.(C) Candidate - Candidate to become a proposed species.(V) Vacated by a court order. Not currently in effect. Being reviewed by the Service.(X) Critical Habitat designated for this species

Important Information About Your Species List

How We Make Species ListsWe store information about endangered and threatened species lists by U.S. GeologicalSurvey 7½ minute quads. The United States is divided into these quads, which are about thesize of San Francisco.

The animals on your species list are ones that occur within, or may be affected by projectswithin, the quads covered by the list.

Fish and other aquatic species appear on your list if they are in the same watershed as your quador if water use in your quad might affect them.

Amphibians will be on the list for a quad or county if pesticides applied in that area may be carriedto their habitat by air currents.

Birds are shown regardless of whether they are resident or migratory. Relevant birds on thecounty list should be considered regardless of whether they appear on a quad list.

PlantsAny plants on your list are ones that have actually been observed in the area covered by thelist. Plants may exist in an area without ever having been detected there. You can find outwhat's in the surrounding quads through the California Native Plant Society's online Inventoryof Rare and Endangered Plants.

SurveyingSome of the species on your list may not be affected by your project. A trained biologistand/or botanist, familiar with the habitat requirements of the species on your list, shoulddetermine whether they or habitats suitable for them may be affected by your project. Werecommend that your surveys include any proposed and candidate species on your list.See our Protocol and Recovery Permits pages.

For plant surveys, we recommend using the Guidelines for Conducting and ReportingBotanical Inventories. The results of your surveys should be published in any environmentaldocuments prepared for your project.

Your Responsibilities Under the Endangered Species ActAll animals identified as listed above are fully protected under the Endangered Species Act of1973, as amended. Section 9 of the Act and its implementing regulations prohibit the take ofa federally listed wildlife species. Take is defined by the Act as "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt,shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect" any such animal.

Take may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills orinjures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding,feeding, or shelter (50 CFR §17.3).

Take incidental to an otherwise lawful activity may be authorized by one of two



procedures:If a Federal agency is involved with the permitting, funding, or carrying out of a project that mayresult in take, then that agency must engage in a formal consultation with the Service.

During formal consultation, the Federal agency, the applicant and the Service work together toavoid or minimize the impact on listed species and their habitat. Such consultation would result ina biological opinion by the Service addressing the anticipated effect of the project on listed andproposed species. The opinion may authorize a limited level of incidental take.

If no Federal agency is involved with the project, and federally listed species may be taken aspart of the project, then you, the applicant, should apply for an incidental take permit. TheService may issue such a permit if you submit a satisfactory conservation plan for the speciesthat would be affected by your project.

Should your survey determine that federally listed or proposed species occur in the area and arelikely to be affected by the project, we recommend that you work with this office and theCalifornia Department of Fish and Game to develop a plan that minimizes the project's direct andindirect impacts to listed species and compensates for project-related loss of habitat. You shouldinclude the plan in any environmental documents you file.

Critical HabitatWhen a species is listed as endangered or threatened, areas of habitat considered essentialto its conservation may be designated as critical habitat. These areas may require specialmanagement considerations or protection. They provide needed space for growth andnormal behavior; food, water, air, light, other nutritional or physiological requirements; coveror shelter; and sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring, germination or seeddispersal.

Although critical habitat may be designated on private or State lands, activities on these landsare not restricted unless there is Federal involvement in the activities or direct harm to listedwildlife.

If any species has proposed or designated critical habitat within a quad, there will be aseparate line for this on the species list. Boundary descriptions of the critical habitat may befound in the Federal Register. The information is also reprinted in the Code of FederalRegulations (50 CFR 17.95). See our Map Room page.

Candidate SpeciesWe recommend that you address impacts to candidate species. We put plants and animalson our candidate list when we have enough scientific information to eventually propose themfor listing as threatened or endangered. By considering these species early in your planningprocess you may be able to avoid the problems that could develop if one of these candidateswas listed before the end of your project.

Species of ConcernThe Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office no longer maintains a list of species of concern.However, various other agencies and organizations maintain lists of at-risk species. Theselists provide essential information for land management planning and conservation efforts.More info

WetlandsIf your project will impact wetlands, riparian habitat, or other jurisdictional waters as definedby section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, youwill need to obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Impacts to wetlandhabitats require site specific mitigation and monitoring. For questions regarding wetlands,please contact Mark Littlefield of this office at (916) 414-6580.



UpdatesOur database is constantly updated as species are proposed, listed and delisted. If youaddress proposed and candidate species in your planning, this should not be a problem.However, we recommend that you get an updated list every 90 days. That would be January06, 2010.





Attachment C: CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants

CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants

Status: Plant Press Manager window with 18 items - Fri, Oct. 16, 2009 14:31 c

Reformat list as: Standard List - with Plant Press controls

ECOLOGICAL REPORTscientific family life form blooming communities elevation CNPS

Astragalustener var.tener

Fabaceae annual herb Mar-Jun

•Playas (Plyas)•Valley and foothillgrassland(VFGrs)(adobe clay)•Vernal pools(VnPls)/alkaline

1 - 60meters

List1B.2

Atriplexcordulata Chenopodiaceae annual herb Apr-Oct

•Chenopod scrub(ChScr)•Meadows and seeps(Medws)•Valley and foothillgrassland(VFGrs)(sandy)/salineor alkaline

1 - 375meters

List1B.2

Atriplexdepressa Chenopodiaceae annual herb Apr-Oct

•Chenopod scrub(ChScr)•Meadows and seeps(Medws)•Playas (Plyas)•Valley and foothillgrassland (VFGrs)•Vernal pools(VnPls)/alkaline, clay

1 - 320meters

List1B.2

Atriplexjoaquiniana Chenopodiaceae annual herb Apr-Oct

•Chenopod scrub(ChScr)•Meadows and seeps(Medws)•Playas (Plyas)•Valley and foothillgrassland(VFGrs)/alkaline

1 - 835meters

List1B.2

Atriplexminuscula Chenopodiaceae annual herb May-Oct

•Chenopod scrub(ChScr)•Playas (Plyas)•Valley and foothillgrassland(VFGrs)/alkaline,sandy

15 - 200meters

List1B.1

Atriplexpersistens Chenopodiaceae annual herb Jun-Oct •Vernal pools

(VnPls)(alkaline)10 - 115meters

List1B.2

Castillejacampestrisssp.succulenta

Scrophulariaceae annual herbhemiparasitic Apr-May •Vernal pools

(VnPls)(often acidic)50 - 750meters

List1B.2

Chamaesycehooveri Euphorbiaceae annual herb

Jul-Sep(Oct)

Months inparentheses

are

•Vernal pools (VnPls) 25 - 250meters

List1B.2

10/16/2009 CNPS Inventory: Plant Press Manager …

S:/Projects/…/CNPS_List.htm 1/2

uncommon.

Eryngiumracemosum Apiaceae annual/perennial

herb Jun-Oct

•Riparian scrub(RpScr)(vernallymesic claydepressions)

3 - 30meters

List1B.1

Lastheniaglabrata ssp.coulteri

Asteraceae annual herb Feb-Jun

•Marshes andswamps(MshSw)(coastal salt)•Playas (Plyas)•Vernal pools (VnPls)

1 - 1220meters

List1B.1

Monardellaleucocephala Lamiaceae annual herb May-Aug

•Valley and foothillgrassland(VFGrs)(sandy,mesic)

35 - 100meters

List1A

Myosurusminimus ssp.apus

Ranunculaceae annual herb Mar-Jun

•Valley and foothillgrassland (VFGrs)•Vernal pools(VnPls)(alkaline)

20 - 640meters

List3.1

Navarretiaprostrata Polemoniaceae annual herb Apr-Jul

•Coastal scrub(CoScr)•Meadows and seeps(Medws)•Valley and foothillgrassland(VFGrs)(alkaline)•Vernal pools(VnPls)/mesic

15 - 700meters

List1B.1

Neostapfiacolusana Poaceae annual herb May-Aug •Vernal pools

(VnPls)(adobe, large)5 - 200meters

List1B.1

Orcuttiainaequalis Poaceae annual herb Apr-Sep •Vernal pools (VnPls) 10 - 755

metersList1B.1

Orcuttiapilosa Poaceae annual herb May-Sep •Vernal pools (VnPls) 46 - 200

metersList1B.1

Sagittariasanfordii Alismataceae

perennialrhizomatous

herb emergentMay-Oct

•Marshes andswamps(MshSw)(assortedshallow freshwater)

0 - 650meters

List1B.2

Tuctoriagreenei Poaceae annual herb

May-Jul(Sep) Months in

parenthesesare

uncommon.

•Vernal pools (VnPls)30 -1070

meters

List1B.1

10/16/2009 CNPS Inventory: Plant Press Manager …

S:/Projects/…/CNPS_List.htm 2/2



Attachment D: Special-Status Species Review Tables

County of Merced - Mid Valley Agricultural Services Project Summary of Special-Status Plant Species Review Initial Study Appendix C

Michael Brandman Associates 1 H:\Client (PN-JN)\1604\16040035\IS-MND\Appendices\Appendix C - Biological Resources Information\Word files\04 - Appendix C - 16040033_SSS_Table_Plants.doc

SUMMARY OF SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES REVIEW



CDFG/CNPS General Habitat Description Potential for Impacts ** Period of Identification

PLANTS Astragalus tener var. tener Alkali milk-vetch

--/--/1B.2 Playas, valley and foothill grassland in adobe clay, and vernal pools. Restricted to alkaline substrates. 1 to 60 meters in elevation.

None. The project site is a mature almond orchard with an unvegetated understory. There is no habitat present for this species. There are no recorded occurrences of this species within 5 miles of the site (CNDDB 2009).

March - June

Atriplex cordulata Heartscale

--/--/1B.2 Chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps, and valley and foothill grassland in sandy soils. Restricted to saline or alkaline substrates. 1 to 375 meters in elevation.


April – October

Atriplex depressa Brittlescale

--/--/1B.2 Chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps, playas, valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools. Restricted to alkaline, clay substrates. 1 to 320 meters in elevation.


April - October

Atriplex joaquiniana San Joaquin spearscale

--/--/1B.2 Chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps, playas, and valley and foothill grassland. Restricted to alkaline soils. 1 to 835 meters in elevation.


April - October

Atriplex minuscula Lesser saltscale

--/--/1B.1 Chenopod scrub, playas, and valley and foothill grassland. Restricted to alkaline, sandy soils. 15 to 200 meters in elevation.


May - October

Atriplex persistens Vernal pool smallscale

--/--/1B.2 Vernal pools in alkaline substrates. 10 to 115 meters feet in elevation.


June - October

Calycadenia hooveri Hoover’s calycadenia

--/--/1B.3 Cismontane woodland and valley and foothill grasslands in rocky soils. 65 to 300 meters in elevation.


July - September

Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta Succulent owl’s-clover

FE/CE/1B.2 Vernal pools, often acidic. 50 to 750 meters in elevation.


April - May






Chamaesyce hooveri Hoover’s spurge

FT/--/1B.2 Vernal pools. 25 to 250 meters in elevation.


July - September

Eryngium racemosum Delta button-celery

--/CE/1B.1 Riparian scrub in vernally mesic clay depressions. 3 to 30 meters in elevation.


June - September

Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri Coulter’s goldfields

--/--/1B.1 Coastal salt marshes and swamps, playas, and vernal pools. 1 to 1,220 meters in elevation.


February - June

Monardella leucocephala Merced monardella

--/1A/-- Valley and foothill grasslands in sandy, mesic soils. 35 to 100 meters in elevation.


May - August

Navarretia prostrata Prostrate navarretia

--/--/1B.1 Mesic sites in coastal scrub, meadows and seeps, and vernal pools. Mesic, alkaline sites in valley and foothill grassland.


April - July

Neostapfia colusana Colusa grass

FT/CE/1B.1 Restricted to large vernal pools with adobe substrates. 16 to 656 feet in elevation.


May - August

Orcuttia inaequalis San Joaquin Valley orcutt grass

FT/CE/1B.1 Vernal pools. 10 to 755 meters in elevation.


April - September

Orcuttia pilosa Hairy orcutt grass

FE/CE/1B.1 Vernal pools. 46 to 200 meters in elevation.


May - September

Sagittaria sanfordii Sanford’s arrowhead

--/--/1B.2 Assorted shallow freshwater marshes and swamps. 0 to 2,132 feet in elevation.


May - October






Tuctoria greenei Greene’s tuctoria

FE/SR/1B.1 Vernal pools. 30 to 1,070 meters in elevation.


May - July

*Status Codes: Federal FE = Federally Endangered FT = Federally Threatened FD = Federally Delisted

State CE = State Endangered CT = State Threatened SSC = State Species of Special Concern SR = State Rare

CNPS 1A = Presumed extinct in California 1B.X = Rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere Threat rank: 0.1 = Seriously threatened in California 0.2 = Fairly threatened in California 0.3 = Not very threatened in California

**Potential for Impacts if Present. High = Species was observed, or suitable habitat is present and the species has been recorded recently within or adjacent to the project site. Medium = Species is locally common and suitable habitat is present. Low = Habitat is marginal, or suitable habitat is present but species is rare or locally uncommon. Very Low = Habitat is poor and species is very rare and has not been recorded within 5 miles of the project site. None -= Habitat is absent or the project site is not within the range of the species.

County of Merced - Mid Valley Agricultural Services Project Summary of Special-Status Wildlife Species Review Initial Study Appendix C

Michael Brandman Associates 1 H:\Client (PN-JN)\1604\16040035\IS-MND\Appendices\Appendix C - Biological Resources Information\Word files\05 - Appendix C - 16040033_SSS_Table_Wildlife.doc

SUMMARY OF SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES REVIEW




Period of Identification

Invertebrates Branchinecta conservatio Conservancy fairy shrimp

FE/--/-- Vernal pools, swales, and ephemeral freshwater habitats.

None. The project site is a mature almond orchard. There are no seasonal wetlands on site. There are no recorded occurrences of this species within 5 miles of the site (CNDDB 2009).

Year-round

Branchinecta longiantenna Longhorn fairy shrimp



Year-round

Branchinecta lynchi Vernal pool fairy shrimp

FT/--/-- Vernal pools, swales, and ephemeral freshwater habitats.


Year-round

Desmocerus californicus dimorphus Valley elderberry longhorn beetle

FT/--/-- Elderberry shrubs (Sambucus mexicana). None. No elderberry shrubs were observed within the project site. There are several recorded occurrences of this species along the Merced River, which is approximately 2 miles north of the site (CNDDB 2009).

Year-round

Lepidurus packardi Vernal pool tadpole shrimp



Year-round

Fishes Hypomesus transpacificus Delta smelt

FT/CT/-- Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. None. The project site is a mature almond orchard which contains no aquatic habitat. There are no recorded occurrences of this species within 5 miles of the site (CNDDB 2009).

Year-round

Mylopharadon conocephalus Hardhead

--/CSC/-- Widely distributed in low- to mid-elevation streams in the Sacramento-San Joaquin drainage. Range extends from the Kern River to the Pit River and the Russian River. In the San Joaquin drainage, hardhead is scattered in tributary streams and absent from valley reaches. In the Sacramento drainage, hardhead are present mostly in the Sacramento River and larger tributary streams

None. The project site is a mature almond orchard which contains no aquatic habitat. There are no recorded occurrences of this species within 5 miles of the site (CNDDB 2009).

Year-round







Oncorhynchus mykiss Central Valley steelhead

FT/--/-- Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries.


During wet months in tributaries

Onchorhynchus tshawytscha Central Valley spring-run chinook

FT/CT Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries.



Onchorhynchus tshawytscha Central Valley winter-run chinook

FE/CE Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries.



Amphibians Ambystoma californiense California tiger salamander

FT/--/-- Annual grassland habitat and grassy understory of valley-foothill hardwood habitats. Uncommon along streamcourses in valley-foothill riparian habitats. Adults spend most of the year in subterranean refugia, especially burrows of California ground squirrels. Migrate to vernal pools and other temporary rainwater ponds to breed and lay eggs.

None. The project site is a mature almond orchard which contains no habitat suitable for this species. There are no recorded occurrences of this species within 5 miles of the site (CNDDB 2009).

March - May (aquatic larval

sampling)

Rana aurora draytonii California red-legged frog

FT/--/-- Lowlands and foothills in or near permanent or late-season sources of deep water with dense, shrubby, or emergent vegetation.


January - February (adult visual survey)

Spea hammondii Western spadefoot toad

--/CSC/-- Grasslands with temporary pools. None. The project site is a mature almond orchard which contains no habitat suitable for this species. There are no recorded occurrences of this species within 5 miles of the site (CNDDB 2009).

December – February (adult visual survey)

Reptiles Actinemys marmorata Western pond turtle

--/CSC/-- Ponds, marshes, rivers, streams, and irrigation ditches with aquatic vegetation. Requires basking sites and suitable upland habitat for egg-laying. My move overland up to 325 feet for egg laying.

None. The project site is a mature almond orchard which contains no habitat suitable for this species. There is a recorded occurrence of this species along the Merced River approximately 3 miles west of the site (CNDDB 2009).

Year-round (for adults in aquatic

environs)







Gambelia sila Blunt-nosed leopard lizard

FE/CE/-- Currently occurs at scattered sites in the San Joaquin Valley and adjacent foothills. Found at elevations of 30 to 730 m on alkali flats, large washes, arroyos, canyons, and low foothills. On the San Joaquin Valley floor, associated with annual grassland, perennial grassland, alkali playas, and valley sink scrub habitats.


March - July

Phrynosoma coronatum California horned lizard

--/SSC/-- Common in lowlands along sandy washes with scattered low shrubs to provide cover and open areas for basking and loose soils in which they can bury themselves.


Active during warm months.

Thamnophis gigas Giant garter snake

FT/CT/-- Marshes, sloughs, irrigation channels, and occasionally in slow-moving streams. Requires emergent vegetation for cover.


Mid-March - October

Birds Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned hawk

--/CSC/-- Winter resident throughout much of the state; permanent at higher elevations. Breeds in ponderosa pine, black oak, riparian deciduous, mixed conifer, and Jeffrey pine habitats. Prefers but is not restricted to riparian habitats.

None. Nesting habitat for this species is not present; trees are relatively small with sparse canopy. There are no recorded occurrences of this species within 5 miles of the site (CNDDB 2009).

Year-round

Agelaius tricolor Tricolored blackbird

--/CSC/-- Largely endemic to California, most numerous in the Central Valley and nearby vicinity. Breeds near fresh water, preferably in emergent wetland with tall, dense cattails or tules, but also in thickets of willow, blackberry, wild rose, tall herbs. Feeds in grassland and cropland habitats.


April – July

Aquila chrysaetos Golden eagle

--/CSC,CFP/-- Breeds on cliffs or in large trees or electrical towers, forages in open habitats.


Year-round

Athene cunicularia Western burrowing owl

--/CSC/-- Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands characterized by low-growing vegetation. Subterranean nester, dependent upon burrowing mammals.


Dec. 1 - Jan. 31 and

April 15 - July 15







Branta hutchinsii leucopareia Cackling goose

FD/--/-- Winter resident in the Central Valley. Preferred habitats include lacustrine, fresh emergent wetlands, and moist grasslands, croplands, pastures, and meadows.


Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s hawk

--/CT/-- Uncommon breeding resident and migrant in the Central Valley, Klamath Basin, Northeastern Plateau, Lassen Co., and Mojave Desert. Breeds in open stands in juniper-sage flats, riparian areas, and in oak savannah in the Central Valley. Forages in adjacent grasslands, grain or alfalfa fields, or livestock pastures.

None. The project site is a mature almond orchard which contains no habitat suitable for this species. There is a recorded occurrence of this species along the Merced River approximately 2 miles northwest of the site (CNDDB 2009).

Year-round

Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk

--/CSC/-- Forages in grasslands and occasionally in other open habitats during migration and winter.


September - April

Charadrius montanus Mountain plover

--/CSC/-- Winter resident. Found on short grasslands and plowed fields of the Central and Imperial valleys, in foothill valleys west of San Joaquin Valley, and in plowed fields of Los Angeles and western San Bernardino counties. Uses open grasslands, plowed fields with little vegetation, and open sagebrush areas.


September - March

Circus cyaneus Northern harrier

--/CSC/-- Winter resident throughout most of the state; year-round in the Central Valley and Coast Range. Forages in marshes, grasslands, and ruderal habitats; nests in extensive marshes and wet fields or grasslands.


April - September (breeding)

Elanus leucurus White-tailed kite

--/CFP/-- Year-round resident. Nests or roosts in dense, broad-leafed deciduous trees. Forages in herbaceous lowlands with variable tree growth and dense populations of voles.

None. Nesting habitat for this species is not present; trees are relatively small with sparse canopy. There are no recorded occurrences of this species within 5 miles of the site (CNDDB 2009).

January - August (breeding)

Eremophila alpestris actia California horned lark

--/CSC/-- A resident species. Nests in level or gently sloping shortgrass prairie, montane meadows, “bald” hills, opens coastal plains, fallow grain fields, and alkali flats. Grasses, shrubs, forbs, rocks, litter, clods of soil, and other surface irregularities provide cover.


Year-round







Falco columbarius Merlin

--/CSC/-- Uncommon winter migrant. Seldom found in heavily wooded areas or open deserts. Frequents open habitats at low elevations near water and tree stands. Favors coastlines, lakeshores, and wetlands. Ranges from annual grasslands to ponderosa pine and montane hardwood-conifer habitats.


September - May

Falco mexicanus Prairie falcon

--/CSC/-- Year-round resident throughout much of the state; winters in the Central Valley and along the coast. Occurs in open habitats such as grasslands, desert scrub, rangelands and croplands. Nests in a scrape on a sheltered ledge of a cliff overlooking a large, open area.


Year-round

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle

FT/CFP/-- Year-round at ocean shorelines, lake margins, and river courses. Nests in large, old-growth, or dominant live tree with open branchwork, especially ponderosa pine.


Consult agency

Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead shrike

--/CSC/-- Found in a variety of habitats with open areas, available perches, and dense shrubs for nesting.


March - August

Larus californicus California gull

--/CSC/-- Nests in alkali and freshwater lacustrine habitats east of the Sierra Nevada and Cascades. Winter visitor to coastal and interior lowlands Feeds on garbage, carrion, earthworms, adult insects, and larvae. Adults roost in large concentrations along shorelines, landfills, pastures, and on islands.


Year-round

Numenius americanus Long-billed curlew

--/CSC/-- Breeds in upland shortgrass prairies and wet meadows in northeastern California; coastal estuaries, open grasslands, and croplands are used in winter


April - September

Pelecanus erythrorhynchos American white pelican

--/CSC/-- In California, now nests only at large lakes in Klamath Basin. Locally uncommon to common on large lakes and estuaries in Central Valley. Rests in day and roosts at night along edge of water, on beaches, sandbars, or old driftwood, but never in trees.


March – September (breeding)







Phalacrocorax auritus Double-crested cormorant

--/CSC/-- A yearlong resident along the entire coast of California on inland lakes, and in fresh, salt and estuarine waters. Requires undisturbed nest-sites beside water; uses wide rock ledges on cliffs; rugged slopes; and live or dead trees. Suitable nest-site must be within 5-10 miles of a dependable food supply.


April - September

Plegadis chihi White-faced ibis

--/CSC/-- A rare visitor to the Central Valley, this species nests and forages in freshwater marshes.


Consult agency

Mammals Antrozous pallidus Pallid bat

--/CSC/High Broadly distributed in California from sea level to over 6,000 feet. Roosts in caves, buildings, rock crevices, and tree hollows. Overwinters in summer habitats at lower elevations.

Low. Damaged trees may be suitable for roosting. There are no recorded occurrences of this species within 5 miles of the project site (CNDDB 2009).

April - October

Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend’s big-eared bat

--/CSC/High Roosts in colonies in caves, mines, tunnels, or buildings in mesic habitats. The species forages along habitat edges, gleaning insects from bushes and trees. Habitat must include appropriate roosting or hibernacula sites free from disturbance by humans.

None. Suitable roosting habitat is not present. There are no recorded occurrences of this species within 5 miles of the site (CNDDB 2009).

Consult agency

Euderma maculata Spotted bat

--/CSC/High Distribution is extremely patchy and is correlated closely with prominent rock features. Non-migratory, although there may be local migration along altitudinal gradients. Depends upon rock-faced cliff roosting habitat. Thought to roost singly during the day. Forages throughout the night, so it does not utilize night roosts.


Year-round

Eumops perotis californicus Greater western mastiff bat

--/CSC/High Roosts in rock crevices of vertical cliffs and less commonly in buildings. Does not migrate or hibernate.


Year-round







Lasiurus blossevillii Western red bat

--/CSC/High Western red bat is a solitary, foliage-roosting species. Day roosts in edge habitats adjacent to streams or open fields, in orchards, and sometimes in urban areas. Closely associated with riparian habitats; cottonwood stands are preferred roost sites. Roosts behind foliage and hidden from sight, Females do not form maternity colonies, but give birth singly in trees. Migrates south in the winter, and returns north for breeding.


March - September

Lasiurus cinereus Hoary bat

--/--/Medium Solitary foliage-roosting species. Winters along the coast and in southern California; breeds inland and north of wintering range. Breeding habitats include all woodlands and forests with medium to large-size trees and dense foliage.

Low. Trees on the site may be suitable for roosting. There are no recorded occurrences of this species within 5 miles of the project site (CNDDB 2009).

March - September

Myotis ciliolabrum Western small-footed myotis

--/--/Medium Occurs throughout California except in northwest portions of the state. Found in desert, chaparral, riparian, and western coniferous forest habitats. Roosts along or in small groups in rock faces and clay banks where suitable crevices available. Also roosts in barns, boulders, concrete overpasses, caves, mines, and under exfoliating bark. Hibernates in caves and mines.


Year-round

Myotis evotis Long-eared myotis

--/--/Medium Occurs throughout California. Associated with coniferous forests, but also found in semiarid shrublands, sage, chaparral, and agricultural habitats. Roost singly under exfoliating tree bark, tree hollows, caves, mines, cliffs, sink-holes, and rocky outcrops on the ground; occasionally in buildings or under bridges. Presumed to hibernate.


Year-- round

Myotis lucifigus Little brown bat

--/--/Medium Occurs throughout California except extreme south. Found in woodland and forest habitats. Roost sites include tree cavities, caves, and human-occupied structures. Hibernates in caves and abandoned mines.


Year-round







Myotis thysanodes Fringed myotis

--/--/High Widely distributed throughout California in all habitat types. Known to migrate, but very little information available regarding migration patterns. Most abundant in xeric woodlands, such as oak and pinyon-juniper forests. Roosts in caves, buildings, underground mines, rock crevices in cliff faces, and bridges in groups ranging from 10 to 2,000. Hibernates in buildings or underground mines


Year-round

Myotis volans Long-legged myotis

--/--/High Found primarily in forested areas, especially blue oak-foothill pine, montane hardwood-conifer, ponderosa pine, and Sierran mixed conifer. Migrates short distances to hibernation sites. Roosts in abandoned buildings, cracks in the ground, bridges, cliff crevices, exfoliating tree bark, and hollows within snags. Females form large maternity colonies of hundreds of individuals. Hibernates in winter in caves and mines.


Year-round

Taxidea taxus American badger

--/CSC/-- Herbaceous, shrub, and open stages of most habitats with dry, friable soils.


Year-round

Vulpes macrotis mutica San Joaquin kit fox

FE/CT/-- Occur in annual grasslands or grassy open stages of vegetation dominated by scattered brush, shrubs, and scrub with loose-textured, sandy and loamy soils. .

None. The project site is a mature almond orchard which contains no habitat suitable for this species. There is a recorded occurrence of this species approximately 5 miles to the southeast (CNDDB 2009).

Year-round

*Status Codes: Federal FE = Federally Endangered FT = Federally Threatened FD = Federally Delisted

State CE = State Endangered CT = State Threatened SSC = State Species of Special Concern

WBWG High = Species imperiled or at high risk of imperilment. Medium = Lack of information prevents assessment of status and should be considered a threat.

**Potential for Impacts if Present High = Species was observed, or suitable habitat is present and the species has been recorded recently within or adjacent to the project site. Medium = Species is locally common and suitable habitat is present. Low = Habitat is marginal, or suitable habitat is present but species is rare or locally uncommon. Very Low = Habitat is poor and species is very rare and has not been recorded within 5 miles of the project site. None = Habitat is absent or the project site is not within the range of the species.



Appendix D: Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement