SUBSEQUENT INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION...

SUBSEQUENT INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION E. & J. GALLO WINERY EASTSIDE USE PERMIT MAJOR MODIFICATION NO. MM13‐009

P R E P A R E D F O R :

MercedCountyDepartmentofPlanningandCommunityDevelopment2222MStreetMerced,CA95340Contact:JamesHolland209.385.7654

P R E P A R E D B Y :

ICFInternational630KStreet,Suite400Sacramento,CA95814Contact:SallyZeff916.737.3000

July2013

ICFInternational.2013.SubsequentInitialStudy/MitigatedNegativeDeclarationE.&J.GalloWineryEastsideModification.July.(ICF00237.13.)Sacramento,CA.PreparedforMercedCounty,Merced,CA.

Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative DeclarationE. & J. Gallo Winery Eastside Use Permit Modification

July 2013ICF 00237.13

Contents

Tables and Figures ................................................................................................................................. iii

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... iv

Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1‐1

Purpose of the Subsequent IS/MND ................................................................................................... 1‐1

Background .......................................................................................................................................... 1‐1

Lead Agency ......................................................................................................................................... 1‐2

Organization of the IS/MND ................................................................................................................ 1‐2

Chapter 2 Project Description ......................................................................................................... 2‐1

Project Location ................................................................................................................................... 2‐1

Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................................. 2‐1

Previously Approved Livingston Major Modification ................................................................... 2‐1

Project Characteristics ......................................................................................................................... 2‐2

Proposed Facility Eastside Revision .............................................................................................. 2‐2

Construction Equipment and Staging ........................................................................................... 2‐3

Wine Production Activities ........................................................................................................... 2‐3

Staffing .......................................................................................................................................... 2‐3

Vehicular Traffic ............................................................................................................................ 2‐4

Chapter 3 Environmental Checklist ................................................................................................. 3‐1

Determination ..................................................................................................................................... 3‐2

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................. 3‐3

I. Aesthetics .................................................................................................................................. 3‐4

II. Agricultural and Forestry Resources ........................................................................................ 3‐7

III. Air Quality ............................................................................................................................... 3‐9

IV. Biological Resources ............................................................................................................. 3‐21

V. Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................. 3‐26

VI. Geology and Soils .................................................................................................................. 3‐29

VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................... 3‐32

VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...................................................................................... 3‐40

IX. Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................... 3‐44

X. Land Use and Planning ........................................................................................................... 3‐48

XI. Mineral Resources ................................................................................................................ 3‐50

XII. Noise .................................................................................................................................... 3‐51

XIII. Population and Housing ...................................................................................................... 3‐54

July 2013ICF 00237.13

XIV. Public Services .................................................................................................................... 3‐56

XV. Recreation ............................................................................................................................ 3‐59

XVI. Transportation/Traffic ........................................................................................................ 3‐60

XVII. Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................. 3‐63

XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................................................. 3‐66

Chapter 4 References Cited............................................................................................................. 4‐1

Printed References .............................................................................................................................. 4‐1

Personal Communications ................................................................................................................... 4‐3

Appendix A. Bauer and Associates Geotechnical Consultation

Appendix B. Biological Resources Field Report

Appendix C. Cultural Resources Field Report

July 2013ICF 00237.13

Tables and Figures

Tables Page

1 National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards .................................................................... 3‐12

2 Annual Ambient Air Quality Data at Merced South Coffee Avenue and M Street

Stations ................................................................................................................................. 3‐14

3 Emissions of Criteria Pollutants from Construction Activities by Phase ..................................... 3‐16

4 Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions Associated with 12 Additional Employees ................ 3‐19

5 Lifetimes and Global Warming Potentials of Several Greenhouse Gases .................................. 3‐33

6 Emissions of GHG from Construction Activities by Phase .......................................................... 3‐38

7 Emissions of GHG from Operational Activities ........................................................................... 3‐39

Figures Follows Page

1 Project Location ............................................................................................................................ 2‐2

2 Proposed Modifications ................................................................................................................ 2‐2

3 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Plan Designations in the Project Area ................................. 3‐8

4 Williamson Act and Agricultural Preserve Lands in the Project Area ........................................... 3‐8

5 Representative Photographs of the 2‐Acre Revision Site ........................................................... 3‐22

6 Project Area Flood Zone and Proposed Drainage ....................................................................... 3‐46

7 Noise Sensitive Receptors ........................................................................................................... 3‐52

July 2013ICF 00237.13

Acronyms and Abbreviations

µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

AAQS state ambient air quality standards

AB Assembly Bill

ADT average daily trips

ARB California Air Resources Board

Basin San Joaquin Valley Air Basin

BAU business‐as‐usual

BMPs best management practices

BOD biochemical oxygen demand

BPS best performance standards

CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards

CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

CCAs Community Choice Aggregations

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

CESA California Endangered Species Act

CH4 methane

CNEL community noise equivalent level

CNPS California Native Plant Society

CO2 carbon dioxide

CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent

CWA Clean Water Act

dB decibel

dBA A‐weighted decibels

EIR Environmental Impact Report

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Phase I Environmental Site Assessment

ESPs energy service providers

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FIRMs Flood Insurance Rate Maps

FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program

GHG greenhouse gas

gpd gallons per day

Guide Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts

GWP global warming potential

HFCs hydrofluorocarbons

HMBP Hazardous Materials Business Plan

IOUs investor‐owned utilities

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

July 2013ICF 00237.13

Ldn day‐night sound level

Leq equivalent sound level

Lmax maximum sound levels

Lmin minimum sound levels

LUSD Livingston Union School District

LUST leaking underground storage tank

Lxx percentile‐exceeded sound levels

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MCAG Merced County Association of Governments

MCFD Merced County Fire Department

MCHD/EHD Merced County Health Department, Environmental Health Division

mg/L milligrams per liter

MRZ Mineral Resource Zone

MUHSD Merced Unified High School District

N2O nitrous oxide

NAAQS national ambient air quality standards

NAHC Native American Heritage Commission

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOX oxides of nitrogen

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

O3 ozone

Pb lead

PFCs perfluorocarbons

PM particulate matter

PM10 PM less than or equal to 10 microns

PM2.5 PM less than or equal to 2.5 microns

ppb parts per billion by volume

ppm parts per million

ROG reactive organic gases

ROI radius of influence

ROWD Report of Waste Discharge

RPS California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard

Rule 2010 Permits Required Rule

Rule 2201 New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board

sf square foot

SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SR State Route

Subsequent IS/MND Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

July 2013ICF 00237.13

TACs Toxic air contaminants

TDS Total Dissolved Solids

U.S. United States

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

WDRs Waste Discharge Requirements

July 2013ICF 00237.13

Chapter 1 Introduction

Purpose of the Subsequent IS/MND ThepurposeofthisSubsequentInitialStudy/MitigatedNegativeDeclaration(SubsequentIS/MND)istoanalyzetheproposedmodifications(MM13‐009)toconditionalusepermitCUP2714toallowformodificationoftheapprovedexpansionplanfortheexistingE&JGalloWineryFacility.Theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedpermitconsistsofthefollowing:

Adda2‐acreareafor215additionalcooperagetanksusedforstorageandfermentation,withatotalcapacityofapproximately28,000,000gallons,toallowlongerstoragetimeonsite.

Relocatethepreviouslyapprovedadministrationandprocessbuildingswithinthesite.

Theproposedmodificationdoesnotchangetheproductioncapacityofthefacility,butallowsforlongeronsitestoragetoaccommodatetheongoingshifttohigher‐qualitywinesmadeatthefacility.In2011,anIS/MNDwasapprovedforamajormodification(No.MM11‐018)toGallo’sexistingconditionalusepermit(CUP2714)forexpansionoftheGalloLivingstonWineryfacility.ThisdocumentisavailableforreviewattheMercedCountyDepartmentofPlanningandCommunityDevelopment,2222MStreet,Merced.

Thisprojectwastoallowfortheconstructionandoperationofanew‐technologyprocessingfacilitytoincreasewineproductioncapacityandproducehigher‐qualitywinefromexistinginputs.Althoughconsistentwiththenew‐technologyprocessingfacility,theproposedmodifications,includingthe2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsiteandtheadditional215cooperagetankswerenotexaminedinthe2011IS/MND.Therefore,thisSubsequentIS/MNDhasbeenpreparedtoanalyzetheimpactsofthisproposedmodificationtothepreviouslyapprovedexpansion.

UnderCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)GuidelinesSection15162,whenanegativedeclarationhasbeenadoptedforaproject,subsequentactivitiesinvolvingtheprojectmustbeexaminedinlightoftheIS/MND.ThisSubsequentIS/MNDspecificallyconsiderswhethertheadditionof2acrestotheprojectsite,theadditionof215cooperagetanks,andotherminorchangesproposedwouldresultinnewsignificantimpactsnotidentifiedinthe2011IS/MND,orasubstantialincreaseintheseverityofthepreviouslyidentifiedpotentialimpacts.Themitigationmeasuresfromthe2011IS/MNDapplytothismodification,and,whereappropriatetomitigateanynewimpacts,arerevised.ThisSubsequentIS/MNDalsoidentifieswhethernewmitigationmeasuresarerequired.

Background Thepreviouslyapprovedwineryexpansionprojectincludeddevelopmentofthemajorityofthe33‐acreprojectsiteadjacenttotheexistingproductionfacilityonGalloproperty.Theapprovedexpansionincludedinstallationof70newfermentationtanks,approximately123newwinestoragetanks,anapproximately10,000‐squarefoot(sf)filtrationbuilding,anapproximately45,000‐sfprocessbuilding,andanapproximately15,000‐sfadministrationbuilding.

Merced County Introduction

July 2013ICF 00237.13

Lead Agency TheleadagencyfortheproposedprojectisMercedCounty.TheCountyastheCEQALeadAgencyhaspreparedthisSubsequentIS/MNDtoprovideagenciesandthepublicwithinformationabouttheproposedproject’spotentialimpactsonthelocalandregionalenvironment.

Organization of the IS/MND ThisSubsequentIS/MNDisorganizedintothefollowingchapters.

Chapter1,Introduction:Discussestheoveralldocumentpurpose,providesabriefprojectbackground,andsummarizestheorganizationofthedocument.

Chapter2,ProjectDescription:Providesbackgroundontheproposedproject,adescriptionoftheprojectsite,andprojectcomponents.

Chapter3,EnvironmentalChecklist:Thischapterprovidesadescriptionofexistingsiteconditionsfortheproposedprojectandanevaluationofanychangesinimpactsthatwouldoccurasaresultoftheproposedmodificationtotheapprovedproject.

Chapter4,References:Identifiesreferencesusedandpersonsandorganizationscontacted.

July 2013ICF 00237.13

Chapter 2 Project Description

Project Location TheE.&J.GalloLivingstonWineryislocatedonapproximately5,000acresofvineyardsinanagriculturearea,andissurroundedbyfarmlands(Figure1).TheproposedprojectislocatedinMercedCounty,approximately4.5milessouthwestoftheCityofLivingston.Theexistingareaofactivewineryoperationsisapproximately81acres.Itislocatedapproximately8mileswestofStateRoute(SR)99andisaccessedfromRiverRoad,whichbordersthewineryonthesouthandeast.

Existing Conditions E.&J.GalloLivingstonWinerycurrentlyemploys195to460employeesduringoff‐crushandcrushseasons,respectively.Thefacilityispermittedtoprocessapproximately628,000tonsofgrapesperyear,whichareanticipatedtoproduceapproximately125milliongallonsofwine.

Currentonsiteprocessingfacilitiesconsistofagrapereceivingareaandconveyerandprocessingsystem,afermentationsystem,winestoragetanks,apomace(solidsbyproductoffermentation)storagearea,adistilleryforethanolrecovery,awastewaterprocessingfacility,andacompostingarea.

Previously Approved Major Modification 2011

ThepreviouslyapprovedexpansionprojectincreasedGallo’spermittedproductioncapacityto628,000tonsperyearfromitsprevious538,000tonsperyear.Thatprojectalloweddevelopmentofthemajorityofthe33‐acreprojectsiteadjacenttotheexistingproductionfacilityonGalloproperty.Itincludedinstallationof70newfermentationtanks,approximately123newwinestoragetanks,anapproximately10,000‐sffiltrationbuilding,anapproximately45,000‐sfprocessbuilding,andanapproximately15,000squarefootadministrationbuilding.Theundevelopedportionoftheexpansionsitewastobesurfacedwithgravelfordustcontrol,ormaintainedforagriculturaluses.

Thepreviouslyapprovedexpansionprojecthadthreephasesofconstruction.Phase1wastooccurfromJanuary2012toOctober2012.Thisphaseofconstructioniscompletewiththeexceptionofthe10,000squarefootfiltrationbuilding.Thescheduleforconstructionofthisbuildingisundecidedatthistime.Phase2ofconstructionwastooccurfromNovember2012toSeptember2013.Constructionisbehindscheduleonthisphase.The24winestoragetankshavebeeninstalled,butnootherconstructionhasstarted.Constructionofthe24redfermentersthatremaininthisphaseisscheduledtobegininearly2014.ConstructionofPhase3hasnotyetbegun,butisplannedtooccurfromNovember2013toSeptember2014.

Merced County Project Description

July 2013ICF 00237.13

Project Characteristics

Proposed Modification 2013

Theproposedmodificationinvolvesanadditional2‐acreareaforcooperagetankstosupportthepreviouslyapprovedLivingstonEastsideExpansion.Theproposedmodificationdoesnotchangetheproductioncapacityofthefacility.Itallowsforlongeronsitestoragetoaccommodatetheongoingshifttohigher‐qualitywinesmadeatthefacility.Theadditional2acresarelocatedinafallowareaontheeastperimeteroftheapprovedprojectsite,nearRiverRoad.Undertheproposedmodificationtotheapprovedproject,anadditional215cooperagetankswithatotalcapacityofapproximately28,000,000gallonswouldbeinstalled.Thenewtankswillbedual‐purpose,withthecapabilitytobothfermentwhitegrapejuiceduringharvestandserveaswinestorageduringtheoff‐season.Thenewtankswillbeapproximately45feettallandlooksimilartotheexistingtanks.Thenewcooperagetankswouldbelocatedinthe2‐acreexpansionareaandthroughoutthepreviouslyapproved33‐acreexpansionarea.

Theproposedmodificationincludesrelocatingthepreviouslyapproved45,000‐sfprocessbuildingand15,000‐sfadministrationbuildingwithintheprojectsite.Theprocessbuildingwillbemovedapproximately475feettothewest,andtheadministrationbuildingwillbemovedapproximately400feettothewest.Figure2showsthesiteplanforthecooperagetanks.Thesiteplanshowstheapproximatetanklayout.

Project Phasing

Thecooperageexpansionwillbeinstalledinfivephases.Theanticipatedrangeoftanksizesis35,000gallonsto640,000gallonstomatchtheexistingcooperagetanksonsite.Thedistributionofgallonspertankhasnotyetbeenfinalized.

Phase1:Approximately4,000,000gallons

Approximately5to25constructionworkerswouldbeonsiteduringeachphaseoverthecourseofprojectconstruction,whichwouldlastapproximatelyoneyearinadditiontotheongoingconstructionactivitiesanalyzedinthepreviouslyapprovedIS/MND,whichwouldcontinuefor3to5years.Theexacttimingofthebuildoutwillbedeterminedbymarketconditions.

Constructionactivitieswouldstartwithsitepreparation,roughgrading,andcompactionofloosesurfacesoils.Excavationforsiteutilitiesandequipmentfoundationswouldfollowgradingactivities.Undergroundsiteutilityinstallationwouldbeconstructedatthesametimeasgradingandfootingexcavationactivities.Spoilsfromfootingandtrenchingoperationswouldbestockpiledforuseonsite.

Followingsitepreparationandutilityinstallation,footingswouldbeplacedforinstallationofthetanks.Concreteslabswouldbeformedandpouredafterthefootingsarecompleted.Stainlesssteeltankswouldbefabricatedonsiteadjacenttotheconstructionzoneontemporaryconcreteslabs.

K I N G S

C O U N T Y

T U L A R E C O U N T Y

F R E S N O C O U N T Y

STANISLAUS

COUNTY

SAN JOAQUIN

COUNTY

MERCED

COUNTY

Fresno

San Francisco

Monterey

San José

Sacramento

Marysville

Stockton

Vacaville

ChicoOrland

Merced

Woodland

Auburn

Modesto

Turlock

Livingston

River Rd

Gri�

Oak St

Gri�

River Rd

Merced River

0 1,000 2,000

3,000 4,000

Project Location

Figure 1Project Location

Expansion Site

NOT TO SCALE

Source: Summit Engineering, 3-6-2013.

200 300 4001000

Figure 2Proposed Modifications

Approved, not constructed,to be relocated

Expansion Site 2011

Proposed revisions

Legend

July 2013ICF 00237.13

Tankfabricationandinstallationisexpectedtotake2to4months.Aftercompletionoffoundationitems,processequipmentwouldbedeliveredtothesite,wired,andpipedasrequiredforfunctionality.

Construction Equipment and Staging

Constructionequipmentthatwouldbeusedduringeachofthephaseswouldbesimilar.Typicalequipmentthatmaybeusedincludesthefollowing.

Backhoe

Compactor

ConcreteMixerTruck

ConcretePumpTruck

DumpTruck,Standard

EmployeeVehicle

Generators

HydraulicExcavator,Small

MotorGrader

FlatbedTruck

TractorTrailer

SkidSteerLoader

Telehandler

Trencher,Chain

VibratoryCompactor

WaterTruck

WheeledDozer

WheeledScraper

TruckCrane

BoxTruck

ConstructionstagingwouldoccuradjacenttothepreviouslyapprovedexpansionsiteonGalloproperty;staginglocationswouldvarybyphasedependingonwhatisbeingconstructed.Soilstockpileswouldbelocatedonthedesignatedstagingareas.

Wine Production Activities

Noproductionincreaseisanticipatedundertheproposedmodification.Fermentationcapacitywillremainat628,000tonsofgrapesannually,aspreviouslyapprovedundertheLivingstonEastsideExpansionproject.Therewillbenomodificationstothepreviouslyapprovedproductionprocesses,facilityuse,oroperations.Noincreasesinwastewaterorsolidsareanticipatedaspartofthismodification.

Staffing

UndertheLivingstonEastsideExpansionproject,staffingwasincreasedbyapproximately45employees.Becauseproductionremainsunchanged,Galloexpectsonlyasmallincreaseinstaffduetotheincreasedcomplexityofwinemaking.Thestaffincreaseisestimatedatsixemployeesduringtheoff‐seasonandanadditionalsixduringtheharvestseason(atotalof12additionalemployees).Theemployeeswouldworkinthreeshiftsperday,24hoursperday,and365daysperyear.Duringtheharvestseason,employeeswouldwork7daysperweekfromapproximatelyAugust1throughNovember15ofeachyear.Duringthenon‐harvestseason,employeeswouldwork5daysperweek.

July 2013ICF 00237.13

Vehicular Traffic

Trucktraffictoandfromthesiteconsistsofgrapedeliverytrucksduringcrushseasonandbulktankerwineshipmentsandby‐productsyear‐round.Theproposedmodificationswouldnotincreasethenumberoftrucksperdaybecauseproductionvolumewouldnotchange.Itisestimatedthattheadditionalemployeeswouldgenerateamaximumofabout12additionalaveragedaily(round)trips(ADT)duringthecrushseason.

July 2013ICF 00237.13

Chapter 3 Environmental Checklist

1. ProjectTitle: SubsequentIS/MNDE&JGalloWineryEastsideUsePermitMajorModificationNo.MM13‐009

2. LeadAgencyNameandAddress: MercedCounty

3. ContactPersonandPhoneNumber: JamesHolland

(209)385‐7654,Extension4407

4. ProjectLocation: 18000RiverRoadLivingston,CA95334

5. ProjectSponsor’sNameandAddress: E.&J.GalloWineryKeithBader18000RiverRoadLivingston,CA95334

6. GeneralPlanDesignation: Agriculture

7. Zoning: GeneralAgriculture(A‐1)

8. DescriptionofProject:

MercedCountyisconsideringanapplicationbyE.&J.GalloWineryforamodification(MajorModificationNo.MM13‐009)toanexistingConditionalUsePermit(CUP2714)toaddanadditional2acrestotheprojectsitetoallowfortheconstructionanduseof215additionalcooperagetanks.Themodificationalsoinvolvesrelocatingthepreviouslyapprovedadministrativeandprocessbuildingswithintheexpansionsite.Theprojectwouldnotincreasewineproduction.

9. SurroundingLandUsesandSetting:

Rural/Agricultural

10. OtherPublicAgenciesWhoseApprovalisRequired:

MercedCountyDepartmentofPublicWorks,BuildingandSafetyDivision,SanJoaquinValleyUnifiedAirPollutionControlDistrict,MercedCountyHealthDepartment,EnvironmentalHealthDivision.

Merced County Environmental Checklist

July 2013ICF 00237.13

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1. Abriefexplanationisrequiredforallanswersexcept“NoImpact”answersthatareadequately

supportedbytheinformationsourcesaleadagencycitesintheparenthesesfollowingeachquestion.A“NoImpact”answerisadequatelysupportedifthereferencedinformationsourcesshowthattheimpactsimplydoesnotapplytoprojectsliketheoneinvolved(e.g.,theprojectfallsoutsideafaultrupturezone).A“NoImpact”answershouldbeexplainedifitisbasedonproject‐specificfactorsaswellasgeneralstandards(e.g.,theprojectwillnotexposesensitivereceptorstopollutants,basedonaproject‐specificscreeninganalysis).

2. Allanswersmusttakeaccountofthewholeactioninvolved,includingoffsiteaswellasonsite,cumulativeaswellasproject‐level,indirectaswellasdirect,andconstructionaswellasoperationalimpacts.ThisincludesconsiderationoftheimpactanalysisinthepriorMND.

3. Oncetheleadagencyhasdeterminedthataparticularphysicalimpactwouldoccur,thechecklistanswersmustindicatewhethertheimpactispotentiallysignificant,lessthansignificantwithmitigation,orlessthansignificant.“PotentiallySignificantImpact”isappropriateifthereissubstantialevidencethataneffectmaybesignificant.Ifthereareoneormore“PotentiallySignificantImpact”entrieswhenthedeterminationismade,anEnvironmentalImpactReport(EIR)isrequired.

4. “NegativeDeclaration:LessthanSignificantwithMitigationIncorporated”applieswhentheincorporationofmitigationmeasureshasreducedaneffectfroma“PotentiallySignificantImpact”toa“Less‐than‐SignificantImpact”.Theleadagencymustdescribethemitigationmeasuresandbrieflyexplainhowtheyreducetheeffecttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.(MitigationmeasuresfromSectionXVII,“EarlierAnalyses”,maybecross‐referenced.)

5. TheearlieranalysisintheMNDforMM11‐018isusedasthebasisforconsiderationoftheimpactsoftheproposedMM13‐009.Wherepertinent,currentanalysiswillidentifythefollowing:

a. EarlierAnalysisUsed.Identifyandstatewhereearlieranalysesareavailableforreview.

b. ImpactsAdequatelyAddressed.Identifywhicheffectsfromthefollowingchecklistwerewithinthescopeofandadequatelyanalyzedinanearlierdocumentpursuanttoapplicablelegalstandardsandstatewhethersucheffectswereaddressedbymitigationmeasuresbasedontheearlieranalysis.

c. MitigationMeasures.Foreffectsthatare“LessthanSignificantwithMitigationIncorporated,”describethemitigationmeasuresthatwereincorporatedorrefinedfromtheearlierdocumentandtheextenttowhichtheyaddresssite‐specificconditionsfortheproject.

6. Leadagenciesareencouragedtoincorporateintothechecklistreferencestoinformationsourcesforpotentialimpacts(e.g.,generalplans,zoningordinances).Referencetoapreviouslypreparedoroutsidedocumentshould,whenappropriate,includeareferencetothepageorpageswherethestatementissubstantiated.

7. SupportingInformationSources:Asourcelistshouldbeattached,andothersourcesusedorindividualscontactedshouldbecitedinthediscussion.

8. Thisisonlyasuggestedform,andleadagenciesarefreetousedifferentformats;however,leadagenciesshouldnormallyaddressthequestionsfromthischecklistthatarerelevanttoaproject’senvironmentaleffectsinwhateverformatisselected.

9. Theexplanationofeachissueshouldidentify:

a. thesignificancecriteriaorthreshold,ifany,usedtoevaluateeachquestion;and

b. themitigationmeasureidentified,ifany,toreducetheimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.

July 2013ICF 00237.13

I.Aesthetics

PotentiallySignificantImpact

Less‐than‐SignificantwithMitigationIncorporated

Less‐than‐SignificantImpact

NoImpact

Wouldtheproject:

a. Haveasubstantialadverseeffectonascenicvista?

b. Substantiallydamagescenicresources,including,butnotlimitedto,trees,rockoutcroppings,andhistoricbuildingsalongascenichighway?

c. Substantiallydegradetheexistingvisualcharacterorqualityofthesiteanditssurroundings?

d. Createanewsourceofsubstantiallightorglarethatwouldadverselyaffectdaytimeornighttimeviewsinthearea?

Affected Environment

ThewineryfacilityislocatedsouthwestofLivingstoninaruralagriculturalsetting.Thefacilityconsistsofanumberofbuildingsandwinemakingandstoragestructuressuchasfermentationtanks,storagetanks,grapereceivingconveyersystem,andothermachinery.Thesestructuresvaryinheightandareupto45feettall.Someofthesestructuresareonraisedplatforms.Otherdevelopedfeaturesincludeanadministrationbuilding,pavedaccessroads,andsurfaceparkingareas.Areasdirectlyadjacenttothedevelopedportionofthewineryincludevineyards,rowcroplands,somevacantland,andotheragriculturalusessuchasthepomaceprocessingandstorageareas.Thesurroundingareasaredominatedbycommercialagriculturallanduses,withscatteredruralresidences.Distantviewsofthemountainrangescanbeseenbuttheseviewsdonotdominatethevisuallandscape.

Typicalviewersoftheprojectsitearemotoristsontheperimeterroadways,employees,andvisitors.Viewsarelimitedtotheexistingfacilityandthesurroundingagriculturallands.IntermittentviewsoftheMercedRivercanbeseen,butareprimarilyblockedduetothesizeoftheexistingwinemakingandstoragefacilities.Aswiththepreviouslyapprovedexpansionproject,thesiteoftheproposedmodification,includingthe2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsite,isnotlocatedwithinascenicvistaorwithinviewofascenichighway.

Discussion

Checklistitem:a

The2011IS/MNDconcludedthattheexpansionprojectwouldhaveless‐than‐significantimpactsonscenicvistas,andnomitigationwasrequired.Liketherestoftheexpansionsite,thesiteoftheproposedmodificationisnotconsideredascenicvistaanddoesnotprovideviewsofscenicvistasasdefinedbytheCounty.Thesiteoftheproposedmodificationislocatedapproximately0.5mileeast

July 2013ICF 00237.13

oftheMercedRiver.Asaresult,itwouldnotbereadilyvisiblefromtheriverandthisimpactisconsideredlessthansignificant.

Checklistitem:b

The2011IS/MNDconcludedthattheexpansionprojectwouldhaveless‐than‐significantimpactsonvisualcharacterandquality,andnomitigationwasrequired.Liketherestoftheexpansionsite,thesiteoftheproposedmodificationisnotlocatedadjacenttoscenichighways.Therearenorockoutcroppings,trees,orhistoricstructureswithinthe2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsite.Becausetherearenosignificantscenicresourcesatthesiteorinitsproximity,theproposedprojectwouldnotsubstantiallydamagesuchresources.Thisimpactisconsideredlessthansignificant.

Checklistitem:c

The2011IS/MNDconcludedthattheexpansionprojectwouldhaveless‐than‐significantimpactsonvisualcharacterandquality,andnomitigationwasrequired.The2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsitewouldcontainadditionalcooperagetanksthatwouldbeupto45feettall,looksimilartoexistingtanksontherestoftheexpansionsite,andwouldbeconsistentwiththeexistingdevelopedcharacteratthesite.Thepreviouslyapproved45,000squarefootprocessbuildingand15,000squarefootadministrativebuildingwillberelocatedwithintheprojectsite.The2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsitewouldbeentirelyonGallopropertyandwouldnotaltertheexistingvisualcharacterofthesurroundingarea.Therefore,theproposedprojectwouldnothaveanewormoresevereimpactontheexistingvisualcharacterofthesiteorsurroundingsareas.Thisimpactisconsideredlessthansignificant.

Checklistitem:d

The2011IS/MNDconcludedthattheexpansionprojectwouldhaveless‐than‐significantimpactsfromlightorglare,andnomitigationwasrequired.Similartothepreviouslyapprovedexpansionproject,constructionoftheproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldbelimitedtodaytimehours,typicallybetween7a.m.and6p.m.,andwouldnotcreateanewsourceofsubstantiallightingthatwouldaffectnighttimeviewsinthearea.Constructionofthenewtankson‐sitewouldnotcontributenewsourcesofglareasthenewtankswouldbeinsulatedandsurface‐treatedwithurethanefoamtopreventreflectionsontoadjacentroadways(Rubinspers.comm.).Therefore,constructionoftheproposedmodificationwouldnotcreateanewsourceofsubstantiallightorglarethatwouldaffectnighttimeordaytimeviewsinthearea,andimpactsareconsideredlessthansignificant.

Operationoftheproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldlikelyrequiretheuseofarangeofexteriorlightsources.Theprojectapplicanthasnotidentifiedthetype,number,orlocationofexteriorlights;however,aswiththepreviouslyapprovedexpansionproject,itislikelythattherewouldbelightingfromwithinthebuildings,fromlightsatbuildingentryways,andlightingfromtheprojectparkingfacilities.Theproposedmodificationwouldrelocatepreviouslyapprovedbuildingswithinthewinerygroundsandthereforewouldnotsubstantiallyincreasethepotentialforlightandglarefromexteriorlighting.NewprojectlightingwouldberequiredtomeetMercedCounty’slightingcode(Section18.41.060),whichrequirestheuseofdirectionallightingandminimizationofglareandreflections.Asstatedabove,theadditionalcooperagetankswouldbeinsulatedandsurfacetreatedwithurethanefoamtopreventanyglarefrombeingreflectedtowardsadjacentroadways(Rubinspers.comm.).Therefore,theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectisnot

July 2013ICF 00237.13

expectedtocreatenewsourcesofsubstantiallightorglarethatwouldadverselyaffectdayornighttimeviewsinthearea,andthisimpactwouldbelessthansignificant.

July 2013ICF 00237.13

II.AgriculturalandForestryResources

NoImpact

Indeterminingwhetherimpactsonagriculturalresourcesaresignificantenvironmentaleffects,leadagenciesmayrefertotheCaliforniaAgriculturalLandEvaluationandSiteAssessmentModel(1997)preparedbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofConservationasanoptionalmodeltouseinassessingimpactsonagricultureandfarmland.Indeterminingwhetherimpactsonforestresources,includingtimberland,aresignificantenvironmentaleffects,leadagenciesmayrefertoinformationcompiledbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofForestryandFireProtectionregardingthestate’sinventoryofforestland,includingtheForestandRangeAssessmentProjectandtheForestLegacyAssessmentProject,andforestcarbonmeasurementmethodologyprovidedintheForestProtocolsadoptedbytheCaliforniaAirResourcesBoard.Wouldtheproject:

a. ConvertPrimeFarmland,UniqueFarmland,orFarmlandofStatewideImportance(Farmland),asshownonthemapspreparedpursuanttotheFarmlandMappingandMonitoringProgramoftheCaliforniaResourcesAgency,tonon‐agriculturaluse?

b. ConflictwithexistingzoningforagriculturaluseorconflictwithaWilliamsonActcontract?

c. Conflictwithexistingzoningfor,orcauserezoningofforestland(asdefinedinPublicResourcesCodeSection12220(g)),timberland(asdefinedbyPublicResourcesCodeSection4526),ortimberlandzonedTimberlandProduction(asdefinedbyGovernmentCodeSection51104(g))?

d. Resultinthelossofforestlandorconversionofforestlandtonon‐forestuse?

e. Involveotherchangesintheexistingenvironmentthat,duetotheirlocationornature,couldresultinconversionofFarmlandtonon‐agriculturaluseorconversionofforestlandtonon‐forestuse?

July 2013ICF 00237.13

The2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsiteislocatedadjacenttothepreviouslyapprovedexpansionsite,nearRiverRoadandiscurrentlymadeupoffallowland.Likethepreviouslyapprovedexpansionsite,the2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsiteareidentifiedasprimefarmlandbytheDepartmentofConservation’sFarmlandMappingandMonitoringProgram(FMMP)(CaliforniaDepartmentofConservation2010),iszonedA‐1GeneralAgriculture,andisdesignatedAgricultural(“A”)bytheCountyGeneralPlan.TheexpansionsiteisalsounderaWilliamsonActcontractandidentifiedasAgriculturalPreservelandsbytheCounty(seeFigures3and4,respectively).Existingwineryoperationsandwineproductionareidentifiedasusesthatareallowedunderthezoningdesignation.

Likethepreviouslyapprovedexpansion,the2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsitedonotcontainanyforestlandsortimberlandsnorisitzonedforforestortimberlanduses.

Discussion

Checklistitem:a,b,c

Theproposedmodificationwouldresultinthechangeofuseforanadditional2acresoffallowlandstoagriculturalmanufactureandstorageuses.Thischangewouldnotconvertprimefarmlandstoanon‐agriculturaluse,astheproposeduseisconsideredanagriculturaluseunderCountyzoning.Changeinuseofprimefarmlandfromcropproductiontoagriculturalprocessingormanufacturingisnotidentifiedasa“conversion”byexistingorproposedMercedCountypoliciesandregulations.SuchachangeinuseisconsistentwithGeneralPlanpoliciescallingfordiversificationandstrengtheningoftheagriculturalsectorwithintheCounty.Theexistingwinerysupportsthousandsofacresofvineyardsforwineproduction.Therefore,project‐relatedimpactsonprimefarmlandsandagriculturalusesareconsideredlessthansignificant.

Asdescribedabove,the2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsiteiszonedasA‐1“GeneralAgriculture.”Manufacturingandstorageusesofthewineryoperations—boththeapprovedandtheproposeduses—areallowedunderthezoningdesignation.Additionally,theexistingwineryfacilityisapermittedagriculturaluseundertheWilliamsonActcontractandthemodificationwouldnotrequireterminationofthesecontracts.BecausetheproposedmodificationwouldbeconsistentwithexistingzoningforagriculturalusesandwouldnotconflictwithexistingWilliamsonActcontracts,therewouldbenoimpact.

Checklistitem:d,e

Likethepreviouslyapprovedexpansionsite,the2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsiteandsurroundingareasdonotincludeforestlandortimberland,arenotzonedforforestryortimberlanduses,andwouldnotresultinthelossorconversionofsuchlandstonon‐forestuses.Therefore,noimpactswouldoccur.

ExistingFacilities

OpenLand

Vineyard

Crane Ave

Peach Ave

Oak St

Magnolia Ave

Vinewood Ave

Geer Ave

Legion Ave

River Rd

Westside Blvd

Marianna Rd

Vinewood Cir

Sources: Bing Maps Aerial (2010)California Department of Conservation (2010)

0 0.25 0.50.125Miles±

Legend

FMMP 2010

Farmland of StatewideImportancePrime Farmland

Other Land

Farmland of Local Importance

Unique Farmland

Urban and Built-Up Land

Figure 3Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Plan Designations in the Project Area

Expansion Site 2011

ExistingFacilities

OpenLand

Vineyard

Crane Ave

Peach Ave

Oak St

Magnolia Ave

Vinewood Ave

Geer Ave

Legion Ave

River Rd

Westside Blvd

Marianna Rd

Vinewood Cir

Sources: Bing Maps Aerial (2010)Merced County (2010, 2011)

0 0.25 0.50.125Miles±

Legend

Agricultural Preserve 2011

Williamson Act 2010

Figure 4Williamson Act and Agricultural

Preserve Lands in the Project Area

Proposed modification 2013

Expansion Site 2011

July 2013ICF 00237.13

III.AirQuality

NoImpact

Whenavailable,thesignificancecriteriaestablishedbytheapplicableairqualitymanagementorairpollutioncontroldistrictmaybereliedupontomakethefollowingdeterminations.Wouldtheproject:

a. Conflictwithorobstructimplementationoftheapplicableairqualityplan?

b. Violateanyairqualitystandardorcontributesubstantiallytoanexistingorprojectedairqualityviolation?

c. Resultinacumulativelyconsiderablenetincreaseofanycriteriapollutantforwhichtheprojectregionisanonattainmentareaforanapplicablefederalorstateambientairqualitystandard(includingreleasingemissionsthatexceedquantitativethresholdsforozoneprecursors)?

d. Exposesensitivereceptorstosubstantialpollutantconcentrations?

e. Createobjectionableodorsaffectingasubstantialnumberofpeople?

Introduction

Thissectionprovidesananalysisofairqualityimpactsresultingfromtheproposedmodificationtotheapprovedproject.ItsummarizestheoverallregulatoryframeworkforairqualitymanagementinCaliforniaandtheregion,describesexistingairqualityconditionsintheprojectarea,andidentifiessensitiveland‐uses.Environmentalimpactsrelatedtoairqualityandmitigationmeasurestoreduceoreliminatepotentialimpactsarealsodiscussed.

Regulatory Setting

Air Quality Management

TheairqualitymanagementagenciesofdirectimportanceinSanJoaquinCountyincludetheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA),CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard(ARB),andtheSanJoaquinValleyAirPollutionControlDistrict(SJVAPCD).EPAhasestablishedfederalambientairqualitystandardsforwhichARBandtheSJVAPCDhaveprimaryimplementationresponsibility.ARBandtheSJVAPCDarealsoresponsibleforensuringthatstateambientairqualitystandards(AAQS)aremet.TheSJVAPCDhasfurtherresponsibilityforimplementingstrategiesforairqualityimprovementandrecommendingmitigationmeasuresfornewgrowthanddevelopment.

Airqualityisdeterminedprimarilybythetypeandamountofcontaminantsemittedintotheatmosphere,thesizeandtopographyoftheairbasin,anditsmeteorologicalconditions.Stateand

3‐10

July 2013ICF 00237.13

federalcriteriapollutantemissionstandardshavebeenestablishedforsixpollutants:carbonmonoxide(CO),ozone(O3),particulatematter(PM)consistingofPMlessthanorequalto10microns(PM10)andPMlessthanorequalto2.5microns(PM2.5),nitrogendioxide(NO2),sulfurdioxide(SO2),andlead(Pb).WithintheSanJoaquinValleyAirBasin(Basin),theSJVAPCDisresponsibleforensuringthattheseemissionstandardsarenotviolated.

OnDecember15,2005,SJVAPCDadoptedRule9510,IndirectSourceReview.Thisrulefulfillsthedistrict’semissionreductioncommitmentsinthePM10andAttainmentPlansthroughemissionreductionsforconstructionanduseofdevelopmentprojectsthroughdesignfeaturesandonsitemeasures.InaletterfromtheSJVAPCDregardingthepreviouslyapprovedGalloLivingstonWineryEastsideExpansionProject,theSJVAPCDindicatedthattheprojectwasnotsubjecttorule9510(SanJoaquinValleyAirPollutionControlDistrict2011).BecausethisanalysisisasubsequentIS/MNDtotheoriginalexpansionproject,andtheproposedchangestotheapprovedprojectwouldnotchangetheproductionprocess,facilityuse,oroperations,Rule9510wouldalsonotapplytothisproposedproject.

Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards

ExistingairqualityconditionsintheprojectareacanbecharacterizedintermsoftheambientairqualitystandardsthatthefederalgovernmentandCaliforniahaveestablishedforseveraldifferentpollutants.Forsomepollutants,separatestandardshavebeensetfordifferentmeasurementperiods.Moststandardshavebeensettoprotectpublichealthandwelfarewithanadequatemarginofsafety.Forsomepollutants,standardshavebeenbasedonothervalues(suchasprotectionofcrops,protectionofmaterials,oravoidanceofnuisanceconditions).Thenationalambientairqualitystandards(NAAQS)describeacceptableconditions,andwerefirstauthorizedbythefederalCleanAirActof1970.Airqualityisconsideredin“attainment”ifpollutantlevelsarecontinuouslybeloworequaltotheNAAQSandexceedthemnomorethanonceeachyear.TheCaliforniaAmbientAirQualityStandards(CAAQS),whichdescribeadverseconditions,wereauthorizedbytheStatelegislaturein1967.PollutionlevelsmustbebelowtheCAAQSbeforeabasincanattainthestandard.Californiastandardsaregenerallymorestringentthanthenationalstandards.ThepollutantsofgreatestconcernintheproposedprojectareaareCO;O3;andPM10andPM2.5,whichareinhalable.FederalandstateambientairqualitystandardsarepresentedinTable1.

Theprimaryfactorsthatdetermineairqualityarethelocationsofsourcesofairpollutantsandtheamountofpollutantsemittedfromthosesources.Meteorologicalandtopographicalconditionsarealsoimportantfactors.Atmosphericconditionssuchaswindspeed,winddirection,andairtemperaturegradientsinteractwiththephysicalfeaturesofthelandscapetodeterminethemovementanddispersalofairpollutants.

Climate and Topography

Thearea’sclimateisconsidered“inlandMediterranean”andischaracterizedbywarm,drysummersandcoolwinters.Summerhightemperaturesoftenexceed100°F,averaginginthelow90sinthenorthernvalleyandhigh90sinthesouth.

AlthoughmarineairgenerallyflowsintothebasinfromtheSacramento–SanJoaquinRiverDelta,thesurroundingmountainrangesrestrictairmovementthroughandoutofthevalley.Windspeed

3‐11

July 2013ICF 00237.13

anddirectioninfluencethedispersionandtransportationofozoneprecursors,PM10,PM2.5,andCO;themorewindflow,thelessaccumulationofthesepollutants.

TheverticaldispersionofairpollutantsintheSJVABislimitedbythepresenceofpersistenttemperatureinversion(warmairovercoolair).Becauseofdifferencesinairdensity,theairaboveandbelowtheinversiondoesnotmix.O3anditsprecursorswillmixandreacttoproducehigherconcentrationsunderaninversionandwilltrapdirectlyemittedpollutants,suchasCO.

Precipitationandfogtendtoreduceorlimitpollutantconcentrations.O3needssunlightforitsformation,andcloudsandfogblocktherequiredradiation.COisslightlywatersoluble,soprecipitationandfogtendtoreduceCOconcentrationsintheatmosphere.PM10issomewhat“washed”fromtheatmospherewithprecipitation.Annualprecipitationinthevalleydecreasesfromnorthtosouth,withabout20inchesinthenorth,10inchesinthemiddle,andlessthan6inchesinthesouthernpartofthevalley.

Criteria Pollutants

Airqualityisindicatedbyambientconcentrationsofthecriteriapollutants:O3,CO,NO2,SO2,Pb,PM10,andPM2.5.TheNAAQSandCAAQShavebeenestablishedforthesepollutants.O3,NO2,andPMaregenerallyconsideredtoberegionalpollutants,asthesepollutantsortheirprecursorsaffectairqualityonaregionalscale.PollutantssuchasCO,SO2,Pb,andPMareconsideredtobelocalpollutantsthattendtoaccumulateintheairinthesameregionwherethepollutantswereemitted.(Notethatparticulatematterisconsideredtobebothalocalandaregionalpollutant.)Intheprojectvicinity,O3,PM2.5,andPM10areconsideredpollutantsofconcern.Briefdescriptionsofthesepollutantsareprovidedbelow.Toxicaircontaminantsarealsodiscussedbelow,althoughnostateorfederalambientairqualitystandardsexistforthesepollutants.AcompletesummaryoftheCAAQSandNAAQSisprovidedinTable1.

O3increasessusceptibilitytorespiratoryinfections,andisasevereeye,nose,andthroatirritant.Itisanoxidantthatcancauseextensivedamagetoplantsbyleafdiscolorationandcelldamage,andalsoattackssyntheticrubber,textiles,andothermaterials.O3isprimarilyasummerairpollutionproblem.Reactiveorganicgases(ROG)andoxidesofnitrogen(NOX)areO3precursorsmainlyemittedbymobilesources,suchaspassengervehicles,andstationarycombustionequipment.

Carbon Monoxide

COisapublichealthconcernbecauseitcombinesreadilywithhemoglobinandreducestheamountofoxygentransportedinthebloodstream.COcancausehealthproblemssuchasfatigue,headache,confusion,dizziness,andevendeath.MotorvehiclesarethedominantsourceofCOemissionsinmostareas.DataindicatethatlocalCOconcentrationsdonotapproachthestatestandards;however,COconcentrationsinthevicinityofcongestedintersectionsandfreewayswouldbeexpectedtobehigherthanthoserecordedatthemonitoringstation.COconcentrationsareexpectedtocontinuetodeclineintheSJVABbecauseofexistingcontrolsandprogramsandthecontinuedretirementofolder,higher‐pollutingvehicles.

3‐12

July 2013ICF 00237.13

Table 1. National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards

CriteriaPollutant AverageTime CaliforniaStandards

NationalStandardsa

Primary Secondary

Ozone 1‐hour 0.09ppm None None

8–hour 0.070ppm 0.075ppm 0.075ppm

ParticulateMatter(PM10)

24‐hour 50g/m3 150g/m3 150g/m3

Annualmean 20g/m3 None None

FineParticulateMatter(PM2.5)

24‐hour None 35g/m3 35g/m3

Annualmean 12g/m3 15g/m3 15g/m3

CarbonMonoxide 8‐hour 9.0ppm 9ppm None

1‐hour 20ppm 35ppm None

NitrogenDioxide Annualmean 0.030ppm 0.053ppm 0.053ppm

1‐hour 0.18ppm 0.100ppm None

SulfurDioxide Annualmean None 0.030ppm None

3‐hour None None 0.5ppm

Lead 30‐dayAverage 1.5g/m3 None None

Calendarquarter None 1.5g/m3 1.5g/m3

3‐monthaverage None 0.15g/m3 0.15g/m3

Sulfates 24‐hour 25g/m3 None None

HydrogenSulfide 1‐hour 0.03ppm None None

VinylChloride 24‐hour 0.01ppm None None

Sources:CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard2012.Notes:g/m3 = microgramspercubicmeterppm = partspermilliona Nationalstandardsaredividedintoprimaryandsecondarystandards.Primarystandardsareintendedtoprotectpublichealth,whereassecondarystandardsareintendedtoprotectpublicwelfareandtheenvironment.

Inhalable Particulates

Inhalableparticulates(PM10andPM2.5)candamagehumanhealthandretardplantgrowth.Particulatesalsoreducevisibilityandcorrodematerials.Healthconcernsassociatedwithsuspendedparticulatematterfocusonthoseparticlessmallenoughtoreachthelungswheninhaled.Particulateemissionsaregeneratedbyawidevarietyofsources,includingagriculturalactivities,industrialemissions,dustsuspendedbyvehicletrafficandconstructionequipment,andsecondaryaerosolsformedbyreactionsintheatmosphere.

Toxic Air Contaminants

Toxicaircontaminants(TACs)arepollutantswhichmaybeexpectedtoresultinanincreaseinmortalityorseriousillnessorwhichmayposeapresentorpotentialhazardtohumanhealth.Health

3‐13

July 2013ICF 00237.13

effectsincludecancer,birthdefects,neurologicaldamage,damagetothebody’snaturaldefensesystem,anddiseasesthatleadtodeath.AlthoughAAQSexistforcriteriapollutants,nostandardsexistforTACs.ForTACsthatareknownorsuspectedcarcinogens,ARBhasconsistentlyfoundthattherearenolevelsorthresholdsbelowwhichexposureisrisk‐free.TheTACofmostconcernwithregardtotheproposedprojectisdieselexhaustparticulatematter.

Monitoring Data

Existingairqualityconditionsintheprojectareacanbecharacterizedintermsoftheambientairqualitystandardsthatthefederalandstategovernmentshaveestablishedforvariouspollutants(Table1)andbymonitoringdatacollectedintheregion.Monitoringdataconcentrationsaretypicallyexpressedintermsofpartspermillion(ppm)ormicrogramspercubicmeter(µg/m3).ThenearestairqualitymonitoringstationsinthevicinityoftheprojectareaaretheS‐CoffeeAvenueand2334MStreetmonitoringstations.TheS‐CoffeeAvenuestationmonitorsforO3,andthe2334MStreetstationmonitorsforPM10andPM2.5.NostationsmonitorforCOinMercedCounty.AirqualitymonitoringdatafromthesestationsaresummarizedinTable2.Thisdatarepresentsairqualitymonitoringdataforthelastthreeyears(2010–2012)forwhichcompletedataareavailable.

Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status

Areasareclassifiedaseitherattainmentornonattainmentbycomparingactualmonitoredairpollutantconcentrationstostateandfederalstandards.Ifapollutantconcentrationislowerthanthestateorfederalstandard,theareaisclassifiedasbeinginattainmentofthestandardforthatpollutant.Ifapollutantviolatesthestandard,theareaisconsideredanonattainmentarea.Ifdataareinsufficienttodeterminewhetherapollutantisviolatingthestandard,theareaisdesignatedunclassified.Areasthatwerepreviouslydesignatedasnonattainmentareasbuthavesubsequentlymetthestandardarecalledmaintenanceareas.

MercedCountyisclassifiedasbeinginseverenonattainmentfor1‐hourozoneandnonattainmentfor8‐hourozone,PM10,andPM2.5.TheStatehasclassifiedMercedCountyasbeinginattainmentforPb,NO2,SO2,andsulfates,andunclassifiedforCO,hydrogensulfide,andvisibility‐reducingparticles(CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard2011a).

TheEPAhasclassifiedMercedCountyasbeinginnonattainmentfor8‐hourO3,PM2.5,andinattainmentforallotherpollutants(U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency2012).

Sensitive Receptors

Somepopulationgroups,suchaschildren,theelderly,andacutelyillandchronicallyillpersons,especiallythosewithcardio‐respiratorydiseases,areconsideredmoresensitivetoairpollutionthanothers.SJVAPCDgenerallydefinesasensitivereceptorasafacilitythathousesorattractschildren,theelderly,peoplewithillnesses,orotherswhoareespeciallysensitivetotheeffectsofairpollutants,andwherethereisareasonableexpectationofcontinuoushumanexposureaccordingtotheaveragingperiodfortheAAQS(e.g.,24‐hour,8‐hour,or1‐hour).Thenearestsensitivereceptorstotheexpansionsiteareresidenceslocatedapproximately2,000feetfromthesite.

3‐14

July 2013ICF 00237.13

Table 2. Annual Ambient Air Quality Data at Merced South Coffee Avenue and M Street Stations

PollutantStandards 2010 2011 2012Ozone—MercedSouthCoffeeAvenue Maximum1‐hourconcentration(ppm) 0.117 0.102 0.100 Maximum8‐hourconcentration(ppm)(StateStandard) 0.096 0.087 0.086Numberofdaysstandardexceededa CAAQS1‐hour(>0.09ppm) 7 2 2 CAAQS8‐hour(>0.09ppm) 31 41 25 NAAQS8‐hour(>0.08ppm) 14 19 9ParticulateMatter(PM10)b—MercedMStreet Nationalcmaximum24‐hourconcentration(g/m3) 93.4 73.9 89.4

Statedmaximum24‐hourconcentration(g/m3) 91.4 75.0 89.4

Nationalsecondhighestconcentration(g/m3) 53.4 70.4 60.4

Statesecondhighestconcentration(g/m3)e 53.8 73.0 60.6Numberofdaysstandardexceededa NAAQS24‐hour(>150g/m3)f 0.0 0.0 0.0 CAAQS24‐hour(>50g/m3)f 18.4 49.0 ‐

ParticulateMatter(PM2.5)b Nationalcmaximum24‐hourconcentration(g/m3) 46.9 43.5 48.4

Statedmaximum24‐hourconcentration(g/m3) 46.9 43.5 48.4

Nationalsecondhighestconcentration(g/m3) 39.1 38.5 41.8

Statesecondhighestconcentration(g/m3)e 39.1 38.5 41.8Numberofdaysstandardexceededa NAAQS24‐hour(>15g/m3)f 10.1 6.6 12.6 CAAQS24‐hour(>12g/m3)f ‐ ‐ ‐

NitrogenDioxide(CO) Statemaximum1‐hourconcentration(ppm) 0.050 0.051 ‐ Statesecond‐highest1‐hourconcentration(ppm) 0.045 0.046 ‐ Annualaverageconcentration(ppm) 0.007 0.007 ‐Numberofdaysstandardexceededa CAAQS1‐hour(0.18ppm) 0 0 0

Source:CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard2013.Notes: CAAQS = Californiaambientairqualitystandards. NAAQS = nationalambientairqualitystandards. – = insufficientdataavailabletodeterminethevalue. ppm = partspermillion. g/m3 = microgramspercubicmeter.a Anexceedanceisnotnecessarilyaviolation.b Measurementsusuallyarecollectedevery6days.c Nationalstatisticsarebasedonstandardconditionsdata.Inaddition,nationalstatisticsarebasedonsamplersusingfederalreferenceorequivalentmethods.

d Statestatisticsarebasedonlocalconditionsdata,exceptintheSouthCoastAirBasin,forwhichstatisticsarebasedonstandardconditionsdata.Inaddition,StatestatisticsarebasedonCaliforniaapprovedsamplers.

e Statecriteriaforensuringthatdataaresufficientlycompleteforcalculatingvalidannualaveragesaremorestringentthanthenationalcriteria.

f Mathematicalestimateofhowmanydaysconcentrationswouldhavebeenmeasuredashigherthanthelevelofthestandardhadeachdaybeenmonitored.

3‐15

July 2013ICF 00237.13

Significance Criteria

SJVAPCD Thresholds

AppendixGintheCEQAGuidelinesstatesthatthesignificancecriteriaestablishedbytheapplicableairqualitymanagementorairpollutioncontroldistrictmaybereliedupontodeterminetheproject’slevelofimpact.

SJVAPCD’spublishedguidelines,GuideforAssessingandMitigatingAirQualityImpacts(Guide)(SanJoaquinValleyAirPollutionControlDistrict2002),donotrequirethequantificationofconstructionemissions.Rather,itrequiresimplementationofeffectiveandcomprehensivefeasiblecontrolmeasurestoreducePM10emissions(SanJoaquinValleyAirPollutionControlDistrict2002).SJVAPCDconsidersPM10emissionstobethepollutantofgreatestconcernwhenassessingconstruction‐relatedairqualityimpactsandhasdeterminedthatcompliancewithitsRegulationVIII,includingimplementationofallfeasiblecontrolmeasuresspecifiedintheGuide(SanJoaquinValleyAirPollutionControlDistrict2002),constitutessufficientmitigationtoreduceconstruction‐relatedPM10emissionstoless‐than‐significantlevelsandminimizeadverseairqualityeffects.AllconstructionprojectsmustabidebyRegulationVIII.SincethepublicationoftheGuide,theDistricthasrevisedsomeoftherulescomprisingRegulationVIII.GuidancefromDistrictstaffindicatesthatimplementationofadustcontrolplanwouldsatisfyalloftherequirementsofSJVAPCDRegulationVIII(Siongpers.comm.).FurtherconsultationwithSJVAPCDstaffindicatesthat,thoughexplicitthresholdsforconstruction‐relatedemissionsofozoneprecursorsarenotenumeratedintheGuide,theSJVAPCDconsidersasignificantimpacttooccurwhenconstructionemissionsofROGorNOXexceed10tonsperyearorifPM10orPM2.5emissionsexceed15tonsperyear(Siongpers.comm.).

Accordingly,theSJVAPCD’sthresholdsofsignificanceusedinthisanalysis,asindicatedintheGuideandthroughconsultationwithSJVAPCDstaff,aresummarizedbelow.

Projectimplementationwouldproduceemissionsincreasesgreaterthan10tons/yearROG.

Projectimplementationwouldproduceemissionsincreasesgreaterthan10tons/yearNOX.

Projectimplementationwouldproduceemissionsincreasesgreaterthan15tons/yearPM10.

Projectimplementationwouldproduceemissionsincreasesgreaterthan15tons/yearPM2.5

TheproposedprojecttoconstructadditionalexpandedfacilitiesatGalloWinerywillresultinbothconstruction‐andoperations‐relatedemissions.

Discussion

Checklistitem:a

Aprojectisdeemedinconsistentwithairqualityplansifitwouldresultinpopulationand/oremploymentgrowththatexceedsgrowthestimatesincludedintheapplicableairqualityplan,which,inturn,wouldgenerateemissionsnotaccountedforintheapplicableairqualityplanemissionsbudget.Therefore,proposedprojectsneedtobeevaluatedtodeterminewhethertheywouldgeneratepopulationandemploymentgrowthand,ifso,whetherthatgrowthwouldexceedthegrowthratesincludedintherelevantairplans.

AsdiscussedinthepreviouslyapprovedIS/MNDfortheGalloLivingstonWineryEastsideExpansion,165to400employeesworkattheGalloWineryfacilityduringoff‐crushandcrush

3‐16

July 2013ICF 00237.13

seasons,respectively.Theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldrequirehiring12additionalemployeesatthefacility,whichwouldcauseapproximately3–7%growthinemployment.ThisgrowthinemploymentwouldbeconsistentwiththecountywidegrowthmetricusedinthepreviouslyapprovedIS/MND,19%forthe“TotalNonfarm”category,fromtheMercedCountyGeneralPlan(MercedCounty1990).Consequently,emissionsassociatedwiththeadditionof12employeeswouldnotconflictwiththeSJVAPCD’s2007OzonePlan.Thisimpactwouldbelessthansignificant.

Checklistitem:b

ThepreviouslyapprovedexpansionanalysisdeterminedthatemissionsassociatedwithconstructionandoperationalactivitywouldnotexceedtheSJVAPCDthresholdsaftermitigationandoffsets.TheproposedmodificationtotheapprovedexpansionoftheGallofacilitywouldresultinconstructionemissionsthatwerenotanalyzedinthepreviouslyapprovedexpansionanalysis.EmissionsassociatedwiththeadditionalconstructionactivityweredeterminedusingstandardemissionfactorsandassumptionsfromCalEEModandEMFAC2011models.Emissionsassociatedwiththeadditionalvehicletripsthatwouldresultfromthehiringof12additionalemployeeswereestimatedusingtheCalEEModemissionsmodel.EmissionsfromtheconstructionandoperationalphaseswerecomparedseparatelytoSJVAPCDthresholdstoassesswhetherimpactsonairqualitywouldoccurasaresultoftheproposedproject.

Construction Emissions

Emissionsassociatedwithprojectconstructionwouldincludeexhaustandfugitivedustandresultfromenergyconsumptionandmobilesources.Constructionactivitiesassociatedwiththeproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldoccurin2014andbeinadditiontotheongoingconstructionactivitiesanalyzedinthepreviouslyapprovedIS/MND,whichwouldcontinueovera3‐5yearperiod.EmissionsresultingfromconstructionoftheproposedprojectareshowninTable3.

Table 3. Emissions of Criteria Pollutants from Construction Activities by Phase (tons per year)

Constructionphase ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5

SitePreparation 0.10 1.04 0.49 0.15 0.19

GradingandUtilities 0.14 1.39 0.67 0.51 0.24

TankConstruction 0.23 2.16 1.12 0.08 0.08

ProcessPiping 0.09 0.82 0.59 0.07 0.05

ConcretePaving 0.01 0.12 0.04 0.00 0.00

Total 0.57 5.53 2.91 0.81 0.56

SJVAPCDthreshold 10 10 NA 15 15

AsindicatedinTable3,constructionemissionsfromtheproposedprojectwouldnotexceedSJVAPCDthresholdsforROG,NOX,PM10,orPM2.5.Asdiscussedabove,thepreviouslyapprovedexpansionanalysisdeterminedthatemissionsassociatedwithconstructionactivitywouldnotexceedSJVAPCDthresholds.Further,whencombinedwiththepreviouslyapprovedexpansionanalysisemissions,emissionsfromtheproposedprojectwouldnotexceedSJVAPCDthresholds.Althoughemissionsdonotexceedthresholds,theprojectwouldneedtocomplywithSJVAPCDRegulationVIIIasdiscussedabove.ImplementationofMitigationMeasureAIR‐1,fromthe2011IS/MNDwouldsatisfythisrequirement

3‐17

July 2013ICF 00237.13

2011MitigationMeasureAIR‐1:Prepareandimplementadustcontrolplan.

Tocontrolthegenerationofconstruction‐relatedPM10emissions,theCountywillrequireconstructioncontractorstoprepareadustcontrolplanandsubmitittotheSJVAPCDatleast48hoursbeforeanyearthmovingorconstructionactivities.Aspreviouslyindicated,implementationofadustcontrolplanwouldsatisfytherequirementsofRegulationVIII(Siongpers.comm.).Potentialmeasuresthatmightbeincludedinthedustcontrolplancouldinclude,butarenotlimitedto,thefollowing.

Pre‐activity.

Pre‐watertheworksiteandphaseworktoreducetheamountofdisturbedsurfaceareaatanyonetime.

Activeoperations.

Applywatertodryareasduringleveling,grading,trenching,andearthmovingactivities.

Constructandmaintainwindbarriersandapplywaterordustsuppressantstothedisturbedsurfaceareas.

Inactiveoperations,includingafter‐workhours,weekends,andholidays.

Applywaterordustsuppressantsondisturbedsurfaceareastoformavisiblecrust,andrestrictvehicleaccesstomaintainthevisiblecrust.

Temporarystabilizationofareasthatremainunusedfor7ormoredays.

Restrictvehicularaccessandapplyandmaintainwaterordustsuppressantsonallun‐vegetatedareas.

Establishvegetationonallpreviouslydisturbedareas.

Applygravelandmaintainatallpreviouslydisturbedareas.

Pavepreviouslydisturbedareas.

Unpavedaccessandhaulroads,trafficandequipmentstorageareas.

Applywaterordustsuppressantstounpavedhaulandaccessroads.

Postaspeedlimitofnotmorethan15milesperhour,usingsignsateachentranceandagainevery500feet.

Waterordustsuppressantswillbeappliedtovehicletrafficandequipmentstorageareas.

Windevents.

Waterapplicationequipmentwillapplywatertocontrolfugitivedustduringwindevents,unlessunsafetodoso.

Outdoorconstructionactivitiesthatdisturbthesoilwillceasewhenevervisibledustemissionscannotbeeffectivelycontrolled.

Outdoorhandlingofbulkmaterials.

Waterordustsuppressantswillbeappliedwhenhandlingbulkmaterials.

Windbarrierswithlessthan50%porositywillbeinstalledandmaintained,andwaterordustsuppressantswillbeapplied.

Outdoorstorageofbulkmaterials.

Waterordustsuppressantswillbeappliedtostoragepiles.

3‐18

July 2013ICF 00237.13

Storagepileswillbecoveredwithtarps,plastic,orothersuitablematerialandanchoredinamannerthatpreventsthecoverfrombeingremovedbywindaction.

Windbarrierswithlessthan50%porositywillbeinstalledandmaintainedaroundthestoragepiles,andwaterordustsuppressantswillbeapplied.

Athree‐sidedstructurewithlessthan50%porositythatisatleastashighasthestoragepileswillbeused.

Onsitetransportingofbulkmaterials.

Vehiclespeedwillbelimitedontheworksite.

Allhaultruckswillbeloadedsuchthatthefreeboardisnotlessthan6incheswhentransportedacrossanypavedpublicaccessroad.

Asufficientamountofwaterwillbeappliedtothetopoftheloadtolimitvisibledustemissions.

Haultruckswillbecoveredwithatarporothersuitablecover.

Offsitetransportingofbulkmaterials.

Theinteriorofemptiedtruckcargocompartmentswillbecleanedorcoveredbeforeleavingthesite.

Spillageorlossofbulkmaterialsfromholesorotheropeningsinthecargocompartment’sfloor,sides,andtailgateswillbeprevented.

Outdoortransportusingachuteorconveyor:

Noopenchutesorconveyorswillbeused.

Chutesorconveyorswillbefullyenclosed.

Watersprayequipmentwillbeusedtosufficientlywetthematerials.

Transportedmaterialswillbewashedorscreenedtoremovefines(PM10orsmaller).

Operational Emissions

OperationalactivityassociatedwiththefacilityafterimplementationoftheproposedmodificationwouldbelargelyunchangedfromthepreviouslyapprovedIS/MND.Theonlychangeinoperationalactivityistheadditionof12vehicletrips(roundtrips)perdayresultingfromthe12employeesthatwouldbehiredtosupporttheproposedrevisions.AsshowninTable4,emissionsresultingfromtheincreaseinemployeesareminoranddonotexceedtheSJVAPCDthresholdsforNOX,CO,PM10,andPM2.5.Asdiscussedabove,thepreviouslyapprovedexpansionanalysisdeterminedthatemissionsassociatedwithoperationalactivitywouldnotexceedSJVAPCDthresholdsaftermitigationandoffsets.Operationalemissionsfromtheproposedproject(vehicletripsassociatedwiththe12newemployees),whencombinedwiththeoperationalemissionsfromthepreviouslyapprovedexpansionanalysis,wouldnotexceedSJVAPCDthresholds.

3‐19

July 2013ICF 00237.13

Table 4. Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions Associated with 12 Additional Employees

EmissionSource

EmissionsatFullProjectBuildout(2015)(TonsperYear)

ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5

12NewEmployees 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0

SJVAPCDThreshold 10 10 NA 15 15

Note: 2015projectbuildoutisaconservativeassumption.Shouldbuildoutoccurlater,emissionswouldbelower.

BecauseconstructionandoperationemissionswouldnotexceedSJVAPCDthresholdsorsubstantiallycontributetoanexceedancefromthepreviouslyapprovedIS/MND,thisimpactisconsideredlessthansignificant.

Checklistitem:c

TheSJVAPCD’sCEQAGuidelinesindicatethataviolationoftheSJVAPCD’sconstructionoroperationalthresholdsofsignificancewouldresultinaproject‐levelandcumulativeimpact.Inaddition,theSJVAPCDhasdeterminedthatcompliancewiththedustcontrolrequirementsofSVAPCDRegulationVIIIissufficienttomitigatecumulativefugitivedustimpactstoaless‐thansignificantlevel(SanJoaquinValleyAirPollutionControlDistrict2002).Asdiscussedabove,theproposedprojectwouldnotcreateasignificantairqualityimpactafterimplementationofMitigationMeasureAIR‐1.Nocumulativelyconsiderablenetincreaseofanycriteriapollutantwouldoccur,andthisimpactisconsideredlessthansignificantwithimplementationofMitigationMeasureAIR‐1.

Checklistitem:d

Theproposedprojectwouldinvolvetheuseofdiesel‐poweredconstructionequipment,resultingindieselexhaustduringconstructionactivities.In1998,ARBidentifieddieselexhaustasaTAC.Cancerhealthrisksassociatedwithexposurestodieselexhausttypicallyareassociatedwithchronicexposure,inwhicha70‐yearexposureperiodisoftenassumed.Althoughelevatedcancerratescanresultfromexposureperiodsoflessthan70years,acuteexposure(i.e.,exposureperiodsof2to3years)todieselexhausttypicallyisnotanticipatedtoresultinanincreasedhealthriskbecauseittypicallydoesnotresultintheexposureconcentrationsnecessarytoresultinahealthrisk.Healthimpactsassociatedwithexposuretodieselexhaustfromprojectconstructionarenotanticipatedtobesignificantbecauseconstructionactivitiesareexpectedtolastoveraperiodof2years,wellbelowthe70‐yearexposureperiodusedinhealthriskassessments,andthenearestsensitivereceptorsarelocatedapproximately2,000feetfromtheexpansionsite.Consequently,theexposureperiodofdieselexhausttothenearestsensitivereceptorswouldnotresultinanelevatedcancerrisk.Thisimpactisconsideredlessthansignificant.

Checklistitem:e

Theproposedprojectmaycauseincreasedtemporary,dieselexhaust‐relatedodors.However,anyodorswouldceaseafterconstructioniscompleted.Twelveadditionalemployeeswouldbehiredaspartoftheproposedproject,whichwouldresultinadditionalvehicletrips.However,lightdutyvehiclesarenottypicallyassociatedwithobjectionableodors.Proposedchangestothepreviouslyapprovedprojectwouldnotchangetheproductionprocess,facilityuse,oroperationsoftheprojectandarenotanticipatedtoresultinodorimpacts.

3‐20

July 2013ICF 00237.13

TheSJVAPCD’sGuideforAssessingandMitigatingAirQualityImpactsspecifiesthatasignificantodorimpactwouldresultifmorethanoneconfirmedodorcomplaintperyearisreceivedorthreeunconfirmedodorcomplaintsarereceivedperyearwhenaveragedovera3‐yearperiod(SanJoaquinValleyAirPollutionControlDistrict2002).BecauseoftheSJVAPCD’sdiscretionaryapprovalpoweroverthepreviousGalloWineryexpansionanalysisthroughitsPermitsRequiredRule(Rule2010)andNewandModifiedStationarySourceReviewRule(Rule2201),theSJVAPCDpreparedaletterforthepreviouslyapprovedEastsideExpansionanalysisonSeptember2,2011thatindicatedthattherehavebeennocomplaintsreceivedagainstthefacilityandthatnosignificantodorimpactsareanticipatedtooccur.Becauseconstructionactivitiesfortheproposedprojectwouldbetemporary,andoperationalactivitiesfortheproposedprojectwouldnotchangefromthepreviouslyapprovedexpansionanalysis,odorimpactswouldnotdiffersubstantiallyfromthepreviousIS/MND.Consequently,thisimpactisconsideredlessthansignificant.

3‐21

July 2013ICF 00237.13

IV.BiologicalResources

NoImpact

Wouldtheproject:

a. Haveasubstantialadverseeffect,eitherdirectlyorthroughhabitatmodifications,onanyspeciesidentifiedasacandidate,sensitive,orspecial‐statusspeciesinlocalorregionalplans,policies,orregulations,orbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGameorU.S.FishandWildlifeService?

b. Haveasubstantialadverseeffectonanyriparianhabitatorothersensitivenaturalcommunityidentifiedinlocalorregionalplans,policies,orregulations,orbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGameorU.S.FishandWildlifeService?

c. HaveasubstantialadverseeffectonfederallyprotectedwetlandsasdefinedbySection404oftheCleanWaterAct(including,butnotlimitedto,marshes,vernalpools,coastalwetlands,etc.)throughdirectremoval,filling,hydrologicalinterruption,orothermeans?

d. Interferesubstantiallywiththemovementofanynativeresidentormigratoryfishorwildlifespeciesorwithestablishednativeresidentormigratorywildlifecorridors,orimpedetheuseofnativewildlifenurserysites?

e. Conflictwithanylocalpoliciesorordinancesprotectingbiologicalresources,suchasatreepreservationpolicyorordinance?

f. Conflictwiththeprovisionsofanadoptedhabitatconservationplan,naturalcommunityconservationplan,orotherapprovedlocal,regional,orstatehabitatconservationplan?

Theaffectedenvironmentfortheprojectischangedbytheadditionof2acrestotheprojectsiteasdescribedinChapter2,ProjectDescription.Thediscussionofbiologicalresourcespresentonthe2acresandsurroundingareasandpotentialprojectimpactsontheseresourcesisbasedonthe2011EastsideExpansionIS/MNDandaJune18,2013sitevisit.

ICFreviewedthefollowingsourcestoidentifysensitivehabitatsandspecial‐statusplantandanimalspeciesthatareknowntooccurorwithpotentialtooccuratthe2‐acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsiteareaanditssurroundings.

3‐22

July 2013ICF 00237.13

ArecordssearchoftheCaliforniaNaturalDiversityDatabasefortheTurlockandeightsurroundingU.S.GeologicalSurvey(USGS)7.5‐minutequadrangles(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013).

AsearchoftheCaliforniaNativePlantSociety’s(CNPS)onlineInventoryofRareandEndangeredPlants(CaliforniaNativePlantSociety2013).

TheU.S.FishandWildlifeService(USFWS)listofendangered,threatened,andcandidatespeciesfortheTurlockUSGS7.5‐minutequadrangle(U.S.FishandWildlifeService2013).

BiologicalAssessmentfortheLivingstonWineryProposedExpansionProject(KjeldsonBiologicalConsulting,August2011)

E.&J.GalloLivingstonWineryEastsideExpansionInitialStudy/MitigatedNegativeDeclaration(ICF2011).

Areconnaissance‐levelfieldsurveywasconductedbyICFbiologistAngelaAlcalaonJune18,2013.Existingsiteconditionswereusedtoidentifyhabitatthatcouldpotentiallysupportspecial‐statusspecies.Notreesarepresentwithinthe2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsite.Nearbytreeswerescannedwithbinocularstolookforoccupiedraptornestsorraptoractivity.Aerialphotoswerereviewedtoassessthehabitatsurroundingthesiteandthepotentialforwildlifecorridorsfromadjoiningpropertiesontoorthroughthesite.PresenceofwetlandswasdeterminedusingtheU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers’identificationmethods.

The2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsiteiswithinanagriculturalfieldthatwasfallowatthetimeoftheJune18,2013sitevisitbuthashistoricallybeenusedforgrowingrowcropsandvineyard.Thesubstratehasahighsandcontentandvegetationcoverwithinthisareawasmoderate(approximately50%)anddominatedbyweedyplantspecies,predominantlyamaranth(Amaranthussp.)(Figure5).SurroundinglandusesincludetheexistingGallofacilityandparkingareatothewestandnorth,andvineyard,rowcrops,andfallowagriculturalfieldstothesouthandeast.

Nospecial‐statusspeciesorsensitiveresourceshavebeenpreviouslydocumentedonthe2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsite.Neitherthe2acresnortheimmediatesurroundingscontainriparian,seasonalwetland,orvernalpoolhabitat.ThenearestaquaticresourceistheMercedRiver,locatedapproximately0.5miletothenorth.TheripariancorridoroftheMercedRiverisanimportantwildlifecorridorthroughtheregion.The2acresisnotlocatedwithinthecorridor,andprojectimplementationwouldnotresultinthedegradationofhabitatqualityinthecorridor.

TheJune18,2013fieldsurveydidnotlocateanyspecial‐statusspecies,includingactivebirdorraptornests,onthe2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsite.However,aSwainson’shawk(statethreatenedspecies)wasobservedsoaringoverandforagingadjacenttothesite.Numeroussmallmammalburrows(primarilygopherandmice/vole)wereobservedthroughoutthe2‐acresandraptorspecies,includingSwainson’shawk,arelikelytoforageonthesite.Theclosestpotentialnesttreesarelocatedmorethan0.25miletotheeast.

Discussion

Checklistitem:a

The2011IS/MNDidentifiedpotentiallysignificantimpactsrelatedtoremovalofnestingorbreedinghabitatsforSwainson’shawk,anddisturbanceofasinglenativevalleyoaklocated

Figure 5Representative Photographs of the 2-Acre Revision Site

Photo 1. Looking north from south end of site (June 18, 2013).

Photo 2. Looking west toward existing Gallo facility (June 18, 2013).

3‐23

July 2013ICF 00237.13

adjacenttotheproperty.The2011reportconcludedthatthesepotentialimpactscouldbereducedtoaless‐than‐significantlevelwiththemitigationmeasuresincludedintheCEQAdocumentfortheproject.

Theproposedchangestotheapprovedprojectwouldresultintheremovalofapproximately2acresofexistingruderalhabitat.Historicintensiveagriculturalusesonthe2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsitehavedisturbedthelandsuchthatnosensitivehabitats(i.e.,wetlands,riparian,oakwoodlands)orhabitatsthatcouldsupportspecial‐statusplantsremainonthesiteorinitsimmediatesurroundings.Somespecial‐statuswildlifespecieshaveadaptedtodisturbedhabitatswhensuitableconditionsforbreedingand/orforagingexist.Ifgroundsquirrelburrowsorotherundergroundrefugiaarepresent,ruderalandfallowagriculturallandsmayprovidebreedingandwinteringhabitatforburrowingowls,astatespeciesofspecialconcern,aswellasotherground‐nestingmigratorybirds.Ruderalhabitatsmayalsoprovideforagingareasforraptors,includingthestatelistedSwainson’shawk,ifasufficientpreybaseispresent.

AtthetimeoftheJune18,2013fieldsurvey,noburrowingowlsorpotentialwinteringornestingsites(i.e.,groundsquirrelburrows,debrispiles,orculverts)forburrowingowlswereobservedonoradjacenttothe2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsite.Ruderalhabitatonthesitecouldsupportothernestingmigratorybirds,althoughnoactivebirdnestswereobservedduringtheJune2013survey.Ifconstructionoftheproposedprojectoccursduringthenestingseasonformigratorybirds(generallyMarch1throughAugust31),grounddisturbance(includinggrading)couldresultinthedestructionofactivenestswitheggsoryoung.DestructionofanactivemigratorybirdnestorlossofeggsoryoungwouldviolatetheMigratoryBirdTreatyAct(MBTA).

BasedontheproximityoftheMercedRiverripariancorridorandlargetreesscatteredthroughoutthenearbyagriculturalsetting,Swainson’shawkscouldnestinthevicinityofthe2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsite.Theclosestpotentialnesttreesaremorethan0.25milefromthesiteandbasedonexistingnoiseandequipmentdisturbancesassociatedwiththeadjacentGallofacility,constructionandoperationoftheproposedprojectarenotanticipatedtodisturbnestingSwainson’shawks.However,removalofsuitableSwainson’shawkforaginghabitatcouldaffectactivelynestingSwainson’shawksinthe(withina10‐mileradius)becauseforaginghabitatisalimitedresourceinthisarea.OneSwainson’shawkwasobservedforagingjustnorthofthe2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsiteandtheclosestdocumentedSwainson’shawknestisapproximately2.1milessouthwestfromthesite(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013).Swainson’shawkisaprotectedspeciesundertheCaliforniaEndangeredSpeciesAct(CESA).ImpactsonthisspecieswouldbeinviolationofCESAandresultinpotentiallysignificantimpacts.

Theadditionoftheproposed2‐acrestotheprojectsite,andconstructionandoperationonthatsitewouldnotinvolvetheremovalordisturbanceofanytrees.However,itwouldreducepotentialground‐nestingbirdhabitatandSwainson’shawkforaginghabitatbyanadditional2‐acres.WithimplementationofthefollowingtwonewMitigationMeasures:BIO‐3andBIO‐4,potentialimpactsonnestingmigratorybirdsandforagingSwainson’shawkwouldbereducedtoaless‐than‐significantlevel.

MitigationMeasureBIO‐3:Conductapreconstructionground‐nestingbirdsurveyandestablishno‐disturbancebuffers,ifnecessary.

Anestingbirdsurveywillbeconductedbyaqualifiedbiologistnomorethan15dayspriortocommencingconstructionworkduringthenestingseason(generallyMarch1toAugust31).Thesurveywillencompassthe2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsiteandatleast200feet

3‐24

July 2013ICF 00237.13

tothesouthandeastwithinundevelopedareasadjacenttothe2‐acres.Anadditionalsurveywillbeconductedpriortothestartofanewphaseorwheneverthereisabreakof15daysormoreduringthenestingseason.

Ifthepreconstructionsurveyindicatesthepresenceofmigratorybirdnestsinanyareasthatwouldbedirectlyaffectedbyvegetationremoval,constructionactivities,oranyotherground‐disturbingactivities,ano‐disturbancebufferwillbeestablishedbythebiologistaroundthenestingsite.Factorsdeterminingthebuffersizetypicallyincludethelevelofnoiseorconstructiondisturbance,lineofsightbetweenthenestandthedisturbance,ambientlevelsofnoiseandotherdisturbancesinthearea,andothertopographicalorartificialbarriers.Thesefactorswillbeanalyzedinordertomakeanappropriatedecisiononbufferdistances.Thedistance,extent,andnatureofthebufferswillbedeterminedbyaqualifiedwildlifebiologistcoordinatingwithanyapplicableregulatoryagencies(e.g.,CDFW,USFWS).

Toavoiddisturbanceordestructionofanestingsite,noconstructionwilloccurwithintheno‐disturbancebufferuntilafterthebreedingseason,oruntilaqualifiedwildlifebiologistdeterminesthattheyounghavefledged.AreportsummarizingthesurveyresultswillbesubmittedtoMercedCountyandapplicableregulatoryagencies.

MitigationMeasureBIO‐4:CompensateforlossofSwainson’shawkforaginghabitat

Theproposedprojectwillresultinthepermanentlossof2.0acresofsuitableSwainson’shawkforaginghabitat.Theclosestknownnestislocatedapproximately2.1milesfromthe2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsite.

TheMercedCountyPlanningDepartmenthasdevelopedastandardSwainson’shawkmitigationmeasurethat,whenimplemented,willmitigateforthelossofsuitableforaginghabitat.Compensationforthepermanentlossofforaginghabitatisbasedonthedistancefromthenearestnest,asprovidedinthetablebelow.DistancefromProjectBoundaryMitigationAcreageRatioa

Within1mile 1.00:1b

Between1and5miles 0.75:1a Ratiomeans[acresofmitigationland]to[acresofforaginghabitatimpacted].b Thisratioshallbe0.5:1iftheacquiredlandscanbeactivelymanagedforpreyproduction.

CompensationcanbeprovidedthroughfeetitleacquisitionorconservationeasementacquisitionofcomparableforaginghabitatwithimplementationofaCounty‐approvedhabitatmanagementplan.Alternatively,mitigationcreditsmaybepurchasedfromaCounty‐approvedmitigationbankforSwainson’shawkforaginghabitatinMercedCounty.AnoffsitehabitatmitigationplandescribingthemethodofcompensationmustbesubmittedtotheMercedCountyPlanningDepartmentwithin30daysofitsexecutionorpriortothestartofconstruction‐relatedactivities,whicheverisearlier.

Checklistitem:b,c,d

TheproposedchangesintheprojectwillnotresultinanimpactonpotentialwatersoftheU.S.orwatersofthestate(includingvernalpools),riparianvegetation,nativetrees,orothersensitivenaturalcommunitiesbecausetheseresourcesarenotpresentonoradjacenttothe2acresproposed

3‐25

July 2013ICF 00237.13

tobeaddedtotheprojectsite.Habitatonthatareaalsodoesnotsupportestablishednativeresidentormigratorywildlifecorridorsandthereforetheproposedprojectwillnotinterferesubstantiallywiththemovementofanynativeresidentormigratoryfishorwildlifespecies.Noimpactswouldoccurfromtheproposedproject.

Checklistitems:e,f

MercedCountyhasnotadoptedanylanduseregulationsprovidingforprotectionofspecificbiologicalresources,relyinginsteaduponauthorityprovidedthroughstateregulations.Theproposedprojectisnotcoveredunderanexistinghabitatconservationplanornaturalcommunityconservationplan,andthereforewouldnotconflictwithanypoliciesorplansprotectingbiologicalresources.Noimpactswouldoccurfromtheproposedmodificationtotheapprovedproject.

3‐26

July 2013ICF 00237.13

V.CulturalResources

NoImpact

Wouldtheproject:

a. CauseasubstantialadversechangeinthesignificanceofahistoricalresourceasdefinedinSection15064.5?

b. CauseasubstantialadversechangeinthesignificanceofanarchaeologicalresourcepursuanttoSection15064.5?

c. Disturbanyhumanremains,includingthoseinterredoutsideofformalcemeteries?

Thediscussionofculturalresourcesforthe2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsiteandsurroundingareasandpotentialprojectimpactsontheseresourcesisbasedonthe2011EastsideExpansionIS/MNDandaJune18,2013sitevisit.

ICFreviewedthefollowingsourcestoidentifyculturalresourcesattheexpansionsiteanditssurroundings.

ArecordssearchoftheCaliforniaHistoricResourcesInformationSystematCaliforniaStateUniversity,Stanislaus,inTurlock.

ConsultationwiththeNativeAmericanHeritageCommission(NAHC)andlocalNativeAmericanrepresentatives.

TomOriger&Associates.2011.ACulturalResourcesSurveyfortheGalloWineryExpansionProject,18000RiverRoad,Livingston,MercedCounty,California(TomOriger&Associates2011).

Pre‐fieldresearchindicatedthatnopreviouslyrecordedculturalresourcesarelocatedintheprojectareaorwithinone‐halfmileoftheprojectarea.TheNAHCsearchofthesacredlandsfilefailedtoindicatethepresenceofanyresourcesofconcerntoNativeAmericans.

AfieldsurveywasconductedbyICFarchaeologistShahiraAshkaronJune18,2013.The2acreareaproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsiteiswithinanagriculturalfieldthatwasfallowatthetimeoftheJune18,2013sitevisitbuthashistoricallybeenusedforgrowingrowcropsandgrapes.Groundsurfacevisibilitywasgood,rangingfrom75%to90%.Theareawasheavilydisturbedbyagriculturalactivitiesovertheyears.Noculturalresourceswerenotedintheprojectareaduringthesurvey.

3‐27

July 2013ICF 00237.13

Discussion

Checklistitem:a

Asdiscussedabove,norecordedsignificanthistoricalresourcesarelocatedintheprojectareaorontheexpansionsite.Therefore,therewouldbenoimpactontheimportanceofsuchresourcesasaresultofprojectconstructionoroperation.

Checklistitem:b

Theproposedprojectwouldbebuiltinthealready‐disturbedareaoftheexistingfacility,andasdiscussedpreviously,basedontheculturalresourcesurveyandassessmentitwasdeterminedthatnoknownculturalresourcesarelocatedontheexpansionsite.However,itispossiblethatsignificantburiedarchaeologicalmaterialsarepresentontheproposedexpansionsite.Ground‐disturbingactivitiesassociatedwithproject‐relatedconstructionmayresultindisturbanceordestructionoftheseresources.Thisimpactwouldbesignificant,butimplementationofthefollowingmitigationmeasures,adoptedfortheprojectasapartofthepreviousIS/MND,wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.

2011MitigationMeasureCR‐1:StopWorkifburiedculturaldepositsareencounteredduringconstructionactivities.

Ifburiedculturalresourcessuchaschippedorgroundstone,historicdebris,orbuildingfoundationsareinadvertentlydiscoveredduringground‐disturbingactivities,workwillstopinthatareaandwithina100‐footradiusofthefinduntilaqualifiedarchaeologistcanassessthesignificanceofthefindand,ifnecessary,developaResponsePlan,withappropriatetreatmentmeasures,inconsultationwiththeCounty,theStateHistoricPreservationOfficer(SHPO),andotherappropriateagenciesandotherappropriateagencies.PreservationinplaceshallbethepreferredtreatmentmethodperCEQAGuidelinessec.15126.4(b)(avoidance,openspace,capping,easement).Datarecoveryofimportantinformationabouttheresource,research,orotheractionsdeterminedduringconsultation,isallowedifistheonlyfeasibletreatmentmethod.

Checklistitem:c

Noknownhumanremainsarepresentwithintheexpansionsite.However,itispossiblethatconstructionactivitieswouldresultinthediscoveryofhumanremains.Thispotentialimpactisconsideredsignificant.Theimpactwouldbereducedtoaless‐than‐significantlevelbyimplementationofMitigationMeasureCR‐2. Baseduponimplementationofthemitigationmeasuresadoptedin2011forthisproposedproject,noadditionalmitigationsarenecessary.

2011MitigationMeasureCR‐2:StopWorkifHumanRemainsAreEncounteredDuringConstructionActivities.

Ifhumanskeletalremainsareencountered,grounddisturbingactivitiesstopwithina100‐footradiusofthediscovery.TheCountycoronermustbecontactedimmediatelyandisrequiredtoexaminethediscoverywithin48hours.IftheCountyCoronerdeterminesthattheremainsareNativeAmerican,theCoronerisrequiredtocontacttheNativeAmericanHeritageCommission(NAHC)within24hours.Aqualifiedarchaeologist(QA)shouldalsobecontactedimmediately.TheCoronerisrequiredtonotifyandseekoutatreatmentrecommendationoftheNAHC‐designatedMostLikelyDescendant(MLD).

3‐28

July 2013ICF 00237.13

IftheNAHCidentifiesanMLD,andtheMLDmakesarecommendation,andthelandowneracceptstherecommendation,thenground–disturbingactivitiesmayresumeaftertheQAverifiesandnoticestheCountythattherecommendationshavebeencompleted.

IftheNAHCisunabletoidentifytheMLDortheMLDmakesnorecommendation,orthelandownerrejectstherecommendation,andmediationperPRC5094.98(k)fails,thengrounddisturbingactivitiesmayresume,butonlyaftertheQAverifiesandnoticestheCountythatthelandownerhascompletelyreinterredthehumanremainsanditemsassociatedwithNativeAmericanburialswithappropriatedignityontheproperty,andensuresnofurtherdisturbanceofthesiteperPRC5097.98(e)bycountyrecording,openspacedesignationoraconservationeasement.

IfthecoronerdeterminesthatnoinvestigationofthecauseofdeathisrequiredandthatthehumanremainsarenotNativeAmerican,thenground–disturbingactivitiesmayresume,aftertheCoronerinformstheCountofMercedofsuchdetermination.Accordingtostatelaw,sixormorehumanburialsatonelocationconstituteacemeteryanddisturbanceofNativeAmericancemeteriesisafelony.Refs:PORCsecs.21083.2,5094.98,5097.5,5097.9;H&Ssec.7050.5,7052.

WithimplementationofMitigationMeasureCR‐2,impactswouldbelessthansignificant.

3‐29

July 2013ICF 00237.13

VI.GeologyandSoils

NoImpact

Wouldtheproject:

a. Exposepeopleorstructurestopotentialsubstantialadverseeffects,includingtheriskofloss,injury,ordeathinvolving:

1. Ruptureofaknownearthquakefault,asdelineatedonthemostrecentAlquist‐PrioloEarthquakeFaultZoningMapissuedbytheStateGeologistfortheareaorbasedonothersubstantialevidenceofaknownfault?RefertoDivisionofMinesandGeologySpecialPublication42.

2. Strongseismicgroundshaking?

3. Seismic‐relatedgroundfailure,includingliquefaction?

4. Landslides?

b. Resultinsubstantialsoilerosionorthelossoftopsoil?

c. Belocatedonageologicunitorsoilthatisunstableorthatwouldbecomeunstableasaresultoftheprojectandpotentiallyresultinanonsiteoroffsitelandslide,lateralspreading,subsidence,liquefaction,orcollapse?

d. Belocatedonexpansivesoil,asdefinedinTable18‐1‐BoftheUniformBuildingCode(1994),creatingsubstantialriskstolifeorproperty?

e. Havesoilsincapableofadequatelysupportingtheuseofseptictanksoralternativewastewaterdisposalsystemsinareaswheresewersarenotavailableforthedisposalofwastewater?

f. Directlyorindirectlydestroyauniquepaleontologicalresourceorsiteoruniquegeologicfeature?

AReportGeotechnicalInvestigationbyBauerAssociatesinOctober2011(BauerAssociates2011)waspreparedforthe2011IS/MNDandwasupdatedin2013toincorporatetheproposed2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsite(AppendixA).Theconditionofthesoilandstabilityofthe2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsiteisthesameasdescribedinthe2011IS/MNDfortherestoftheexpansionproject.

3‐30

July 2013ICF 00237.13

Discussion

Checklistitem:a

The2011IS/MNDconcludedthattheexpansionprojectwouldhaveless‐than‐significantimpactsongeologyandsoils,andnomitigationwasrequired.Theproposed2‐acremodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldnotexposepeopleorstructurestopotentialadverseeffectsduetoruptureofaknownearthquakefaultbecauseitisnotlocatedonornearaknownfault.Theproposedmodificationalsowouldnotexposepeopleorstructurestopotentialadverseeffectsduetoseismic‐relatedlandslide,becauseitisnotinanareasubjecttolandslide.

Theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectcouldexposepeopleandstructurestopotentialadverseeffectsduetostrongseismicgroundshakingandseismic‐relatedsoildensification.However,allstructureswillbedesignedandbuilttocomplywithMercedCountybuildingstandards,andinaccordancewithrecommendationsintheproject‐specificgeotechnicalstudycompletedforthisproject.

Adherencetotheseguidelineswouldensurethattheimpactwouldbelessthansignificant.Nomitigationisrequired.

Checklistitem:b

Undertheproposedmodificationtotheapprovedproject,anadditional2acreswillbedisturbed.Constructionactivitiessuchasexcavationandgradingcouldresultinlossoftopsoilthroughitsremovalandpossibleacceleratederosion.However,alltopsoilremovedduringconstructionwillbestockpiledandreusedonsite,aswiththepreviouslyapprovedexpansionproject.Further,asdiscussedbelowundertheHydrologyandWaterQualitysection,temporaryconstruction‐relatedwaterqualityimpactswillbemitigatedbyadherencetotherequiredConstructionStormWaterPollutionPreventionPlan(CSWPPP),whichwilldescribeproceduresandbestmanagementpracticestocontrolacceleratederosionandsedimentation.Gallo’sWasteDischargeRequirements(WDRs)willalsoreducepossibleerosionresultingfromconstructionandsurfacerunoffduringprojectoperation.

Stockpilingexcavatedtopsoilandminimizingerosionwilloffsetlossesbutwillnotaddresslossofthesoilprofilewithintheadditional2acres.Lossoftheprofileofhigh‐qualitysoilwouldbesmallinrelationtotheamountofagriculturallandinthearea.Inaddition,theproposedexpansionisnotregardedasaconversionunderMercedCountyGeneralPlan,orWilliamsonActpolicies.

BecauseerosionwillbecontrolledwithaCSWPPPandbecauselossofhigh‐qualitytopsoilundertheprojectfootprintissmall,theimpactwouldbelessthansignificant.Nomitigationisrequired.

Checklistitem:c,d

Liketherestofthepreviouslyapprovedprojectsite,soilsinthe2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsitehavealowriskofliquefactionandpresentalowshrink‐swellhazard.

Soilsinthe2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsitearethesameasthoseinthepreviouslyapprovedexpansionarea;theyarenon‐uniformlyintergraded,andtherelativedensityishighlyvariable.Loadsinducedbytheadditionalcooperagetankscouldcausesubstantialnon‐uniformsettlement,estimatedat4–8inchesover50years.Thesenon‐uniformweaksandscouldalsobesubjecttonon‐uniformdensificationasaresultofseismicgroundshaking.However,allstructureswillbedesignedandbuilttocomplywithMercedCountystandardsandinaccordancewith

3‐31

July 2013ICF 00237.13

recommendationsintheproject‐specificgeotechnicalinvestigation.Adherencetothesestandardsandrecommendationswouldensurethatthisimpactwouldbelessthansignificant.Nomitigationisrequired.

Checklistitem:e,f

Humanwasteatthefacilityisdisposedofwithaseptictanksystem(MercedCountyLocalAgencyFormationCommission2007).SoilsattheGallofacilityhavelimitationsontheirsuitabilityforsepticsystems.Thepreviouslyapprovedexpansionaccountedfor45newemployees.Theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldadd12newemployees,foratotalof57newemployees.Theincreaseddemandforsepticuseisnotexpectedtobesubstantialandexistingprocedurestohandlecollectionanddisposalofdomesticwastewaterwouldcontinuetobeimplemented.Additionally,allnewfacilitieswouldbeconstructedinaccordancewithMercedCountybuildingstandardsandtheproject‐specificgeotechnicalreport,whichwouldaddressminimizingthesusceptibilityofsoilstosepticfailure.Thisimpactwouldbelessthansignificant.Nomitigationisrequired.

3‐32

July 2013ICF 00237.13

VII.GreenhouseGasEmissions

NoImpact

Wouldtheproject:

a. Generategreenhousegasemissions,eitherdirectlyorindirectly,thatmayhaveasignificantimpactontheenvironment?

b. Conflictwithanapplicableplan,policy,orregulationadoptedforthepurposeofreducingtheemissionsofgreenhousegases?

Thissectionprovidesananalysisofclimatechangeimpactsresultingfromtheproposedproject.Itdescribesgreenhousegas(GHG)emissionscommonlygenerated,discussesrecentGHGinventories,andsummarizesthecurrentregulatoryframeworkrelatedGHGemissionsandclimatechange.Environmentalimpactsrelatedtoclimatechange,aswellasmitigationmeasurestoreduceoreliminatepotentialimpactsarealsodiscussed.

Climate Change

ThephenomenonknownasthegreenhouseeffectkeepstheatmosphereneartheEarth’ssurfacewarmenoughforthesuccessfulhabitationofhumansandotherlifeforms.PresentintheEarth’sloweratmosphere,GHGsplayacriticalroleinmaintainingtheEarth’stemperature;GHGstrapsomeofthelong‐waveinfraredradiationemittedfromtheEarth’ssurfacethatwouldotherwiseescapetospace.

Visiblesunlightpassesthroughtheatmospherewithoutbeingabsorbed.Someofthesunlightstrikingtheearthisabsorbedandconvertedtoheat,whichwarmsthesurface.Thesurfaceemitsinfraredradiationtotheatmosphere,wheresomeofitisabsorbedbyGHGsandre‐emittedtowardthesurface;someoftheheatisnottrappedbyGHGsandescapesintospace.HumanactivitiesthatemitadditionalGHGstotheatmosphereincreasetheamountofinfraredradiationthatgetsabsorbedbeforeescapingintospace,thusenhancingthegreenhouseeffectandamplifyingthewarmingoftheearth(CenterforClimateandEnergySolutions2012).

IncreasesinfossilfuelcombustionanddeforestationhaveexponentiallyincreasedconcentrationsofGHGsintheatmospheresincetheIndustrialRevolution.RisingatmosphericconcentrationsofGHGsinexcessofnaturallevelsenhancethegreenhouseeffect,whichcontributestoglobalwarmingoftheEarth’sloweratmosphereandinduceslarge‐scalechangesinoceancirculationpatterns,precipitationpatterns,globalicecover,biologicaldistributions,andotherchangestotheEarthsystemthatarecollectivelyreferredtoasclimatechange.

TheIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange(IPCC)hasbeenestablishedbytheWorldMeteorologicalOrganizationandUnitedNationsEnvironmentProgrammetoassessscientific,technical,andsocioeconomicinformationrelevanttotheunderstandingofclimatechange,itspotentialimpacts,andoptionsforadaptationandmitigation.TheIPCCestimatesthattheaverageglobaltemperaturerisebetweentheyears2000and2100couldrangefrom1.1° Celsius,withno

3‐33

July 2013ICF 00237.13

increaseinGHGemissionsaboveyear2000levels,to6.4° Celsius,withsubstantialincreaseinGHGemissions(IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange2007a:97–115).LargeincreasesinglobaltemperaturescouldhavesubstantialadverseeffectsonthenaturalandhumanenvironmentsontheplanetandinCalifornia.

Principal Greenhouse Gases

TheprimaryGHGsgeneratedbythealternativeswouldbecarbondioxide(CO2),methane(CH4),andnitrousoxide(N2O).Eachofthesegasesisdiscussedindetailbelow.Notethatperfluorocarbons(PFCs)andhydrofluorocarbons(HFCs)arenotdiscussed,becausethesegasesareprimarilygeneratedbyindustrialprocesses,whicharenotanticipatedaspartoftheproject.

Tosimplifyreportingandanalysis,methodshavebeensetforthtodescribeemissionsofGHGsintermsofasinglegas.ThemostcommonlyacceptedmethodtocompareGHGemissionsistheglobalwarmingpotential(GWP)methodologydefinedintheIPCCreferencedocuments(IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange1996,2001:241–280).TheIPCCdefinestheGWPofvariousGHGemissionsonanormalizedscalethatrecastsallGHGemissionsintermsofCO2equivalent(CO2e),whichcomparesthegasinquestiontothatofthesamemassofCO2(CO2hasaglobalwarmingpotentialof1bydefinition).

Table5liststheglobalwarmingpotentialofCO2,CH4,andN2O;theirlifetimes;andabundancesintheatmosphere.

Table 5. Lifetimes and Global Warming Potentials of Several Greenhouse Gases

GreenhouseGasesGlobalWarmingPotential(100years)

Lifetime(years)

2005AtmosphericAbundance

CO2(ppm) 1 50–200 379

CH4(ppb) 21 9–15 1,774

N2O(ppb) 310 120 319

Sources:IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange1996,2001:388–390.CH4 = methaneCO2 = carbondioxideN2O = nitrousoxideppm= partspermillionbyvolume.ppb = partsperbillionbyvolume.

Carbon Dioxide

CO2isthemostimportantanthropogenicGHGandaccountsformorethan75%ofallGHGemissionscausedbyhumans.TheprimarysourcesofanthropogenicCO2intheatmosphereincludetheburningoffossilfuels(includingmotorvehicles),gasflaring,cementproduction,andlandusechanges(e.g.,deforestation,oxidationofelementalcarbon).CO2canberemovedfromtheatmospherebyphotosyntheticorganisms(e.g.,plants).Itsatmosphericlifetimeof50–200yearsensuresthatatmosphericconcentrationsofCO2willremainelevatedfordecadesevenaftermitigationeffortstoreduceGHGconcentrationsarepromulgated(IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange2007a).

3‐34

July 2013ICF 00237.13

AtmosphericCO2hasincreasedfromapre‐industrialconcentrationof280ppmto379ppmin2005(IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange2007b).

Methane

CH4,themaincomponentofnaturalgas,isthesecondmostabundantGHGandhasaGWPof21(IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange1996).SourcesofanthropogenicemissionsofCH4includegrowingrice,raisingcattle,usingnaturalgas,landfilloutgassing,andminingcoal(NationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration2010).CertainlandusesalsofunctionasbothasourceandsinkforCH4.Forexample,wetlandsareaterrestrialsourceofCH4,whereasundisturbed,aerobicsoilsactasaCH4sink(i.e.,theyremoveCH4fromtheatmosphere).

AtmosphericCH4hasincreasedfromapre‐industrialconcentrationof715ppbto1,774ppbin2005(IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange2007b).

Nitrous Oxide

N2OisapowerfulGHG,withaGWPof310(IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange1996).AnthropogenicsourcesofN2Oincludeagriculturalprocesses(e.g.,fertilizerapplication),nylonproduction,fossil‐fuelfiredpowerplants,nitricacidproduction,andvehicleemissions.N2Oalsoisusedinrocketengines,racecars,andasanaerosolspraypropellant.Naturalprocesses,suchasnitrificationanddenitrification,canalsoproduceN2O,whichcanbereleasedtotheatmospherebydiffusion.IntheUnitedStates(U.S.)morethan70%ofN2Oemissionsarerelatedtoagriculturalsoilmanagementpractices,particularlyfertilizerapplication.

N2Oconcentrationsintheatmospherehaveincreased18%frompre‐industriallevelsof270ppbto319ppbin2005(IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange2007b).

Regulatory Setting

AppendixGintheCEQAGuidelinesstatethatthesignificancecriteriaestablishedbytheapplicableairqualitymanagementorairpollutioncontroldistrictmaybereliedupontodeterminetheproject’slevelofimpactintermsofGHGemissions.TheSJVAPCDupdatedtheirCEQAguidelinestoincludeguidanceforevaluatingGHGsignificanceinDecember2009.

Climatechangehasonlyrecentlybeenwidelyrecognizedasanimminentthreattotheglobalclimate,economy,andpopulation.Thus,thenational,state,andlocalclimatechangeregulatorysettingiscomplexandevolving.Thefollowingsectionidentifieskeylegislation,executiveorders,andseminalcourtcasesrelevanttotheenvironmentalassessmentofprojectGHGemissions.

Federal

Environmental Protection Agency Endangerment and Cause and Contribute Findings (2009)

OnDecember7,2009,theEPAsignedtheEndangermentandCauseorContributeFindingsforGreenhouseGasesunderSection202(a)oftheCAA.UndertheEndangermentFinding,EPAfindsthatthecurrentandprojectedconcentrationsofthesixkeywell‐mixedGHGs—CO2,CH4,N2O,SF6,PFCs,andHFCs—intheatmospherethreatenthepublichealthandwelfareofcurrentandfuturegenerations.UndertheCauseorContributeFinding,EPAfindsthatthecombinedemissionsofthese

3‐35

July 2013ICF 00237.13

well‐mixedGHGsfromnewmotorvehiclesandnewmotorvehicleenginescontributetotheGHGpollutionthatthreatenspublichealthandwelfare.

Thesefindingsdonotthemselvesimposeanyrequirementsonindustryorotherentities.However,thisactionisaprerequisitetofinalizingEPA’sproposednewcorporateaveragefueleconomystandardsforlight‐dutyvehicles,whichEPAproposedinajointproposalincludingtheDepartmentofTransportation’sproposedcorporateaveragefuel‐economystandards.

TheStateofCaliforniahasadoptedlegislation,andregulatoryagencieshaveenactedpolicies,addressingvariousaspectsofclimatechangeandGHGemissionsmitigation.Muchofthislegislationandpolicyactivityisnotdirectedatcitizensorjurisdictionsbutratherestablishesabroadframeworkforthestate’slong‐termGHGmitigationandclimatechangeadaptationprogram.Thefollowingkeylegislationisapplicabletotheproposedproject.

Executive Order S‐3‐05 (2005)

SignedbyGovernorArnoldSchwarzeneggeronJune1,2005,ExecutiveOrderS‐3‐05assertsthatCaliforniaisvulnerabletotheeffectsofclimatechange.Tocombatthisconcern,ExecutiveOrderS‐3‐05establishedthefollowingGHGemissionsreductiontargetsforstateagencies.

By2010,reduceGHGemissionsto2000levels.

By2020,reduceGHGemissionsto1990levels.

By2050,reduceGHGemissionsto80percentbelow1990levels.

Executiveordersarebindingonlyonstateagencies.Accordingly,EOS‐03‐05willguidestateagencies’effortstocontrolandregulateGHGemissionsbutwillhavenodirectbindingeffectonlocalgovernmentorprivateactions.TheSecretaryoftheCaliforniaEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyisrequiredtoreporttotheGovernorandstatelegislaturebiannuallyontheimpactsofglobalwarmingonCalifornia,mitigationandadaptationplans,andprogressmadetowardreducingGHGemissionstomeetthetargetsestablishedinthisexecutiveorder.

Assembly Bill 32—California Global Warming Solutions Act (2006)

AssemblyBill(AB)32setsthesameoverallyear2020GHGemissionsreductiongoalsasExecutiveOrderS‐3‐05,whilefurthermandatingthattheARBcreateaplanthatincludesmarketmechanismsandimplementrulestoachieve“real,quantifiable,cost‐effectivereductions”ofGHGs.AB32furtherdirectsstateagenciesandthenewlycreatedstateClimateActionTeamtoidentifydiscreteearlyactionGHGreductionmeasures.Theseactionswereadoptedinearly2010andrelatetotruckefficiency,portelectrification,tireinflation,andreductionofPFCs,propellants,andsulfurhexafluoride.

Climate Change Scoping Plan

TheARB’sClimateChangeScopingPlanpreparedpursuanttoAB32containsthemainstrategiesCaliforniawillusetoreduceGHGfrombusiness‐as‐usual(BAU)emissionsprojectedfor2020backto1990levels(CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard2008).Aspartofthescopingplan,theARBandotheragenciesareundertakingregulatoryrulemaking,culminatinginruleadoptionbyJanuary1,2011,

3‐36

July 2013ICF 00237.13

forreducingGHGemissionstoachievetheemissionscapby2020,althoughofficialadoptionhasnotyetoccurredatthetimeofthiswriting.

InMarch2011,aSanFranciscoSuperiorCourtenjoinedtheimplementationofARB’sScopingPlan,findingthealternativesanalysisandpublicreviewprocessviolatedbothCEQAandtheARB’scertifiedregulatoryprogram(AssociationofIrritatedResidents,etalv.CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard.CaseNo.CPF‐09‐509562,March18,2011).Inresponsetothislitigation,theARBadoptedaFinalSupplementtotheAB32ScopingPlanFunctionalEquivalentDocumentonAugust24,2011.ARBstaffre‐evaluatedthestatewideGHGbaselineinlightoftheeconomicdownturnandupdatedtheprojected2020emissionsto507millionmetrictonsCO2e.Tworeductionmeasures(PavleyIandtheRenewablePortfolioStandard)notpreviouslyincludedinthe2008ScopingPlanbaselinewereincorporatedintotheupdatedbaseline.AccordingtotheFinalSupplement,themajorityofadditionalmeasuresintheClimateChangeScopingPlanhavebeenadoptedandarecurrentlyinplace(CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard2011b).

Senate Bills 1078/107 and Executive Order S‐14‐08—Renewable Portfolio Standard (2008)

SBs1078and107,California’sRenewablePortfolioStandard(RPS),obligateinvestor‐ownedutilities(IOUs),energyserviceproviders(ESPs),andCommunityChoiceAggregations(CCAs)toprocureanadditional1%ofretailsalesperyearfromeligiblerenewablesourcesuntil20%isreached,nolaterthan2010.TheCPUCandCECarejointlyresponsibleforimplementingtheprogram.EOS‐14‐08setforthalongerrangetargetofprocuring33%ofretailsalesby2020.

State CEQA Guidelines

TheStateCEQAGuidelinesrequireleadagenciestodescribe,calculate,orestimatetheamountofGHGemissionsresultingfromaproject.Moreover,theguidelinesemphasizethenecessitytodeterminepotentialclimatechangeeffectsoftheprojectandproposemitigationasnecessary.Theguidelinesconfirmthediscretionofleadagenciestodetermineappropriatesignificancethresholds,butrequirethepreparationofanenvironmentalimpactreport(EIR)if“thereissubstantialevidencethatthepossibleeffectsofaparticularprojectarestillcumulativelyconsiderablenotwithstandingcompliancewithadoptedregulationsorrequirements”(Section15064.4).

California Cap‐and‐Trade (2011)

OnDecember16,2010,ARBapprovedmeasurestoenactaGHGcap‐and‐tradeprogramforthestateofCalifornia.TheARBadoptedCap‐and‐TradeonOctober20,2011.TheCaliforniaCap‐and‐Tradeprogramisamarket‐basedsystemwithanoverallemissionslimitforaffectedsectors.Theprogramwillregulateover85%ofCalifornia’semissionsandstaggerscompliancerequirementsaccordingtothefollowingschedule:1)electricitygenerationandlargeindustrialsources(2012);2)Fuelcombustionandtransportation(2015).Thefirstcomplianceyearwhencoveredsourceswillhavetoturninallowancesis2013(CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard2011c).

SJVAPCDhasadoptedGHGguidancetoassistleadagenciesindeterminingthelevelofsignificanceofoperational‐relatedGHGemissions,pursuanttoCEQA.SVJAPCD’sGHGguidanceisintendedtostreamlineCEQAreviewbypre‐quantifyingemissionsreductionsthatwouldbeachievedthrough

3‐37

July 2013ICF 00237.13

theimplementationofbestperformancestandards(BPS).Projectsareconsideredtohavealess‐than‐significantcumulativeimpactonclimatechangeifanyofthefollowingconditionsaremet.1. ComplywithanapprovedGHGreductionplan.

2. Achieveascoreofatleast29usinganycombinationofapprovedoperationalBPS.Ascoreof29representsa29%reductioninGHGemissionsrelativetounmitigatedconditions(1point=1%).ThisgoalisconsistentwiththereductiontargetsestablishedbyAssemblyBill32.

3. ReduceoperationalGHGemissionsbyatleast29%overBAUconditions(demonstratedquantitatively).

SJVAPCDguidancerecommendsquantificationofGHGemissionsforallprojectsinwhichanEIRisrequired,regardlessofwhetherBPSachieveascoreof29(SanJoaquinValleyAirPollutionControlDistrict2009).Theguidancedocumentdoesnotestablishanemissionsthresholdforconstruction‐relatedemissions

ThereiscurrentlynoadoptedGHGreductionplanforMercedCounty;therefore,option1fromtheSVJAPCDGHGguidance—complywithanapprovedGHGreductionplan—cannotbeusedtoevaluateprojectsignificance.Accordingly,anassessmentastowhethertheprojectcanachieveascoreof29throughtheimplementationofBPS(option2)orreduceoperationalGHGemissionsby29%relativetoBAUconditions(option3)isperformedinthisanalysis.

Significance Criteria

BasedontheCEQAGuidelinesAppendixG,animpactpertainingtoclimatechangeisconsideredsignificantifitwouldcauseeitherofthefollowing.

GenerateasignificantamountofGHGemissions,eitherdirectlyorindirectly.

Conflictwithanyapplicableplan,policy,orregulationadoptedforthepurposeofreducingGHGs.

Discussion

The2011IS/MNDconcludedthatconstructionandoperationalGHGemissionsassociatedwiththeexpansionactivitieswouldbetemporaryandwouldnotresultinanydirectimpactsonclimatechange.

Checklistitem:a

ThepreviouslyapprovedexpansionanalysisdeterminedthatconstructionandoperationalGHGemissionswouldnotresultinsignificantimpacts,asconstructionemissionswouldbetemporaryandoperationalemissionswouldbelessenedthroughmitigation.Implementationoftheproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldresultinshort‐termconstructionemissionsofCO2,CH4,andN2Ofromtheuseofconstructionequipmentonsiteaswellfromon‐roadfuelcombustionfromemployeecommutes.

Construction Emissions

EmissionsassociatedwiththeadditionalconstructionactivityweredeterminedusingstandardemissionfactorsandassumptionsfromtheCalEEModandEMFAC2011models.Emissionsassociatedwiththeadditionalvehicletripsthatwouldresultfromhiring12additionalemployees

3‐38

July 2013ICF 00237.13

wereestimatedusingtheCalEEModemissionsmodel.GHGsgeneratedfromelectricityuseduringconstructionwereestimatedusingemissionfactorsfromaPG&Epublicutilityreport(forCO2)andfromtheEPA’seGriddatabase(forCH4andN2O)(CaliforniaClimateActionRegistry2012,U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency2012).

Constructionactivitiesassociatedwiththeproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldoccurin2014andbeinadditiontotheconstructionactivitiesanalyzedinthepreviouslyapprovedIS/MND,whichwouldoccurovera3‐5yearperiod.ConstructionemissionsassociatedwiththeproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectareshowninTable6.

AsshowninTable6,constructionactivitiesassociatedwiththeproposedprojectwouldgenerate781.5metrictonsofCO2e.Asdiscussedabove,constructionGHGemissionsfromthepreviouslyapprovedexpansionanalysiswouldbetemporaryandnotcauseanydirectimpactsonclimatechange.Similarly,theGHGemissionsgeneratedduringconstructionactivitiesoftheproposedprojectwouldbeconfinedtothedurationofconstructionactivities,andwouldnotresultinanysubstantiallymoresevereimpactsthanthoseassessedinthepreviousIS/MND,whichwerefoundtobelessthansignificantwithimplementationofthebestmanagementpractices(BMPs)containedinMitigationMeasureCC‐1,adoptedwiththeapprovaloftheprojectandthepreviousIS/MND.ThismitigationmeasurewouldalsoreduceGHGemissionsgeneratedduringconstructionoftheproposedmodificationsandreducetheimpacttolessthansignificant.

Table 6. Emissions of GHG from Construction Activities by Phase

Constructionphase MetricTonsCO2e

ProposedModification

SitePreparation 123.3

GradingandUtilities 164.7

TankConstruction 349.8

ProcessPiping 125.3

ConcretePaving 18.4

ConstructionElectricity 65.0

Total(ProposedModification) 781.5

2011MitigationMeasureCC‐1:ImplementbestmanagementpracticesforGHGemissions.

Theprojectapplicantshallimplement,totheextentfeasible,BMPsoutlinedbelow.

Alternative‐fueled(e.g.,biodiesel,electric)constructionvehicles/equipmentwillcompriseatleast15%ofthefleet.

Useatleast10%localbuildingmaterials.

Recycleatleast50%ofconstructionwasteordemolitionmaterials.

Operational Emissions

Asdiscussedabove,operationalemissionsfromthepreviouslyapprovedexpansionanalysiswouldbereducedtoalessthansignificantlevelthroughmitigation.Theproposedprojectwouldinvolvehiring12additionalemployees,including6permanentand6seasonalemployees,atthefacility,whichwouldresultinGHGemissionsfromthevehiclesoftheseemployeesastheycommutetoand

3‐39

July 2013ICF 00237.13

fromwork.AllotheroperationalactivitieswouldremainunchangedbetweentheproposedprojectandtheoperationalactivitiescoveredinthepreviouslyapprovedIS/MND.Asaresult,thenewoperationalGHGemissionsassociatedwiththeproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldconsistonlyofthenewemployeevehicleemissions.Theseemissionswouldrepresentasmallfractionoftheemissionsassociatedwiththepreviouslyapprovedexpansionanalysisandwouldnotcontributeasubstantiallymoresevereimpact.Emissionsassociatedwiththe12additionalemployeesareshowninTable7.

Table 7. Emissions of GHG from Operational Activities

Constructionphase MetricTonsCO2e

ProposedModification

NewEmployeeCommuteEmissions 0.2

AsshowninTable7,emissionsfromthecommutetripsofthenewemployeeswouldbeminor,totalinglessthanaquarterofametrictonofCO2eandapproximately.01%oftheoperationalemissionsofthepreviouslyapprovedexpansionanalyzedinthe2011IS/MND.AlthoughallGHGemissionscontributetoclimatechange,theemployeecommuteandconstructionemissionsalonewouldnothaveasignificantimpactontheenvironmentthatissubstantiallymoreseverethandisclosedinthe2011IS/MND.Asdiscussedabove,implementationofMitigationMeasureCC‐1wouldreducetheimpactofconstructionemissions.Thisimpactislessthansignificant.

Checklistitem:b

TheStatehasadoptedseveralpoliciesandregulationsforthepurposeofreducingGHGemissions(discussedabove).ThemoststringentoftheseisAB32,whichdesignatesreductionofstatewideGHGemissionsto1990levelsby2020.Asdiscussedabove,additionalconstructionactivityassociatedwiththeproposedprojectwouldgenerateGHGemissionsinadditiontotheGHGemissionsthatwereanalyzedinthe2011IS/MND.TheseadditionalGHGemissionswouldstillbeataless‐than‐significantlevelwithimplementationofMitigationMeasureCC‐1.Thus,GHGemissionsgeneratedbytheproposedprojectwouldnotconflictwiththeStategoalslistedinAB32orinanyotherstatepoliciesadoptedtoreduceGHGemissions.Thisimpactisconsideredlessthansignificant.

3‐40

July 2013ICF 00237.13

VIII.HazardsandHazardousMaterials

NoImpact

Wouldtheproject:

a. Createasignificanthazardtothepublicortheenvironmentthroughtheroutinetransport,use,ordisposalofhazardousmaterials?

b. Createasignificanthazardtothepublicortheenvironmentthroughreasonablyforeseeableupsetandaccidentconditionsinvolvingthereleaseofhazardousmaterialsintotheenvironment?

c. Emithazardousemissionsorinvolvehandlinghazardousoracutelyhazardousmaterials,substances,orwastewithinone‐quartermileofanexistingorproposedschool?

d. BelocatedonasitethatisincludedonalistofhazardousmaterialssitescompiledpursuanttoGovernmentCodeSection65962.5and,asaresult,woulditcreateasignificanthazardtothepublicortheenvironment?

e. Belocatedwithinanairportlanduseplanareaor,wheresuchaplanhasnotbeenadopted,bewithintwomilesofapublicairportorpublicuseairport,andresultinasafetyhazardforpeopleresidingorworkingintheprojectarea?

f. Belocatedwithinthevicinityofaprivateairstripandresultinasafetyhazardforpeopleresidingorworkingintheprojectarea?

g. Impairimplementationoforphysicallyinterferewithanadoptedemergencyresponseplanoremergencyevacuationplan?

h. Exposepeopleorstructurestoasignificantriskofloss,injury,ordeathinvolvingwildlandfires,includingwherewildlandsareadjacenttourbanizedareasorwhereresidencesareintermixedwithwildlands?

APhaseIEnvironmentalSiteAssessment(ESA)waspreparedbyBauerAssociatesforthe2011IS/MND.TheinformationinthisESAappliestothe2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsiteaswellasthepreviouslyapprovedexpansion.AccordingtotherecordssearchintheESA,themainGalloWineryfacilityhadanammoniacoolantpipeleakin2007.Subsequenttotheleakandcleanupactivities,Galloinitiatedapreventivemaintenanceplanfortheinsulatedcoolantpipingtopreventfutureleaks.Aleakingundergroundstoragetank(LUST)associatedwiththecompostingoperation

3‐41

July 2013ICF 00237.13

ontheexpansionsitetothewestofthemainwineryfacilitywasalsoidentified.TheLUSTcontinuestobeidentifiedasan“open”recordofhazardouscontamination;however,sitehistoryofthecontaminationisnotavailableandtherecordssearchdidnotincludeanyinformationrelatedtosoilorgroundwatercontamination.

Discussion

Checklistitem:a

The2011IS/MNDconcludedthattheimpactfromtheroutinetransportofhazardousmaterialswouldbelessthansignificant,andnomitigationwasrequired.Likethepreviouslyapprovedexpansionproject,constructionactivitieswouldinvolveroutinetransport,use,anddisposalofpotentiallyhazardousmaterialssuchassolvents,paints,oils,grease,andcaulking.Suchtransport,use,anddisposalmustbecompliantwithapplicableregulationsasdescribedintheRegulatorySettingabove.Becausecompliancewithexistingregulationsismandatory,theproposedprojectisnotexpectedtocreateasignificanthazardtothepublicortheenvironmentthroughtheroutinetransport,use,ordisposalofhazardousmaterials.

Theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldnotinvolveanincreaseinproduction.Noincreasesintheuseofhazardousmaterialsusedforproductionareanticipated.Incrementalincreasesofchemicalsusedforstorageandequipmentcleaningmayoccur.Themajorityofchemicalsareused,stored,andcontainedontheexistingwineryinvariouslocationsandaresubjecttoMercedCountyHealthDepartment,EnvironmentalHealthDivision(MCHD/EHD)requirements.ProceduresforhandlingallhazardousmaterialsarecontainedintheexistingandapprovedHazardousMaterialsBusinessPlan(HMBP),andallactivitiesaremonitoredbytheMCHD/EHD.Forthepreviouslyapprovedexpansion,GallowasrequiredtoupdateitsexistingHMBPtoincludetheexpandedwineproductionactivities.Becauseproductionwouldnotincreasewiththeproposedmodification,theHMBPdoesnotneedfurtherrevision.Therefore,impactsrelatedtotheroutinetransport,use,ordisposalofhazardousmaterialsduetoimplementingtheproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldbelessthansignificant.Nomitigationisrequired.

Checklistitem:b

The2011IS/MNDconcludedthattheexpansionprojectwouldhavealess‐than‐significantimpactrelatedtoaccidentalreleaseofhazardousmaterials.Asstatedabove,theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldnotincreaseproduction,andwouldnotincreasewineryproduction,andtheuseofsignificantamountsofhazardousmaterialsabovewhatwasanalyzedinthe2011IS/MNDarenotanticipated.Furthermore,theexistingHMBPincludesanemergencyresponseplantorespondtoaccidentalreleasesofhazardousmaterials.Gallo’sexistingemergencyresponseplanincludesaninventoryofequipmentandfirstaidforpersonalprotection,evacuationprocedures,evacuationmap,spillcontrolanddecontaminationprocedures,andincidentreportingandrecordingrequirements.Additionally,GallowouldberequiredtocomplywithCal/OSHAandfederalstandardsforthestorageandhandlingoffuels,flammablematerials,andfireprevention.Withadherencetotheaboveplans,proceduresandregulations,theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldhavealess‐than‐significantimpactrelatedtoaccidentalreleasesofhazardousmaterials.Nomitigationisrequired.

3‐42

July 2013ICF 00237.13

Checklistitem:c

TheGalloWineryisinaruralagriculturalareaapproximately4.5milesfromLivingston,whichistheclosestcommunitywhereschoolsarelocated.Therearenoschoolswithin0.25mileofthe2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsite.Therefore,therewouldbenoimpact.

Checklistitem:d

The2011IS/MNDconcludedthattheGallowineryisnotlocatedonandisnotdesignatedasahazardoussite.Asdescribedabove,theESAandrecordssearchforthepreviouslyapprovedexpansionprojectcoversthe2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsite.TherecordssearchidentifiedanammoniacoolantpipeleakattheGalloWineryfacilityinNovember2007.Subsequenttotheleakandcleanupactivities,Galloinitiatedapreventivemaintenanceplanfortheinsulatedcoolantpipingtopreventfutureleaks.TheregulatorydatabasesearchalsoidentifiedaLUSTassociatedwiththecompostingoperationontheexpansionsitetothewestofthemainwineryfacility.ThestatusoftheLUSTis“open,”althoughthereisnositehistoryavailable,andaffectedsoilorgroundwaterarenotidentified.ImplementationofsoilandgroundwatermonitoringrequirementscontainedinGallo’sexistingWDRswillensurethatpotentialimpactsrelatedtotheexistingLUSTarelessthansignificant.

Therecordssearchdidnotidentifyanyhazardousmaterialsonorneartheexpansionsite.Further,therecordssearchdidnotidentifyanyoffsitelocationsthathavebeenincludedinfederalorstatelists.Therefore,theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldnotcreateasignificanthazardtothepublicortheenvironmentandtheimpactofimplementingtheproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectisconsideredlessthansignificant.Nomitigationisrequired.

Checklistitem:e,f

TheclosestpublicairportisTurlockMunicipalAirport,locatedapproximately10milesnortheastoftheexpansionsite,andtheclosestprivateairstripistheStevensonStrip,locatedapproximately4.5milessouthwestoftheexpansionsite.Duetothesedistancesfromtheexpansionsite,aircraftoverflightswouldnotposeasafetyhazardtopeopleworkingorresidingonthefacilityorwithinitsvicinity.Therewouldbenoimpact.

Checklistitem:g

Constructionandoperationoftheproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldnotrequiretheclosureofanypublicorprivatestreetsorroadwaysandwouldnotimpedeaccessofemergencyvehiclestotheprojectoranysurroundingareas.AccordingtotheMercedCountyGeneralPlan,theCountyreviewsdevelopmentplansforsafecirculation(includingprovisionforaminimumoftwoaccesspointsforlargerdevelopments)priortoapprovalofallapplicablepermits.Thisensuresescapeandemergencyserviceoptionsformosthazards.Therearethreeexistingaccesspointstothewinery,whichwouldbemaintainedduringconstructionoftheproposedmodification.Gallo’sexistingemergencyresponseplanalsoincludesevacuationplansforanyemergencyeventresultingfromwineryoperationsthatisapprovedandcoordinatedwiththeCounty’sMCHD/EHDandCountyfireprotectionproviders.Asaresult,theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldnotresultinasignificantimpactrelatedtoimplementationofanemergencyresponse/evacuationplan.Nomitigationisrequired.

3‐43

July 2013ICF 00237.13

Checklistitem:h

The2011IS/MNDconcludedthatimpactsrelatedtowildlandfiresandfirehazardsarelessthansignificantandnomitigationwasrequired.TheGallofacilityisnotlocatedinawildlandareaandisnotlocatedinanareazonedforsusceptibilitytofirerisk.Althoughtherearenowildlandsintheprojectarea,potentialrisksassociatedwithfirehazardsduetoconstructionactivitiesexist;constructioncontractorsarerequiredtocomplywithstateregulationsforuseofcombustiblesubstances.Productionwouldnotincreaseundertheproposedmodificationtotheapprovedproject.Thereforepotentialfirerisksresultingfromwineproductionactivitieswouldnotchangefromthe2011IS/MND.Therewouldbenoimpact.

3‐44

July 2013ICF 00237.13

IX.HydrologyandWaterQuality

NoImpact

Wouldtheproject:

a. Violateanywaterqualitystandardsorwastedischargerequirements?

b. Substantiallydepletegroundwatersuppliesorinterferesubstantiallywithgroundwaterrecharge,resultinginanetdeficitinaquifervolumeoraloweringofthelocalgroundwatertablelevel(e.g.,theproductionrateofpre‐existingnearbywellswoulddroptoalevelthatwouldnotsupportexistinglandusesorplannedusesforwhichpermitshavebeengranted)?

c. Substantiallyaltertheexistingdrainagepatternofthesiteorarea,includingthroughthealterationofthecourseofastreamorriver,inamannerthatwouldresultinsubstantialerosionorsiltationonsiteoroffsite?

d. Substantiallyaltertheexistingdrainagepatternofthesiteorarea,includingthroughthealterationofthecourseofastreamorriver,orsubstantiallyincreasetherateoramountofsurfacerunoffinamannerthatwouldresultinfloodingonsiteoroffsite?

e. Createorcontributerunoffwaterthatwouldexceedthecapacityofexistingorplannedstormwaterdrainagesystemsorprovidesubstantialadditionalsourcesofpollutedrunoff?

f. Otherwisesubstantiallydegradewaterquality?

g. Placehousingwithina100‐yearfloodhazardarea,asmappedonafederalFloodHazardBoundaryorFloodInsuranceRateMaporotherfloodhazarddelineationmap?

h. Placewithina100‐yearfloodhazardareastructuresthatwouldimpedeorredirectfloodflows?

i. Exposepeopleorstructurestoasignificantriskofloss,injury,ordeathinvolvingflooding,includingfloodingasaresultofthefailureofaleveeordam?

j. Contributetoinundationbyseiche,tsunami,ormudflow?

3‐45

July 2013ICF 00237.13

Surface Water

ThemajorsurfacewaterfeaturesnexttotheproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectareirrigationlateralsandtheMercedRiver(seeFigure6).TheexpansionsitelieswithintheLowerMercedRiverWatershed.TheMercedRiverhasitsheadwatersinYosemiteNationalPark,locatedinthecentralSierraNevada.Theriverhasthreedams:theNewExchequerDam,theMcSwainDam,andtheCrocker‐HuffmanDam.Thesedamsareusedtosupplywatertonearbycommunitiesaswellasforgeneratingelectricity,recreation,andfloodcontrol.ThewaterqualityoftheMercedRiverinthehigherelevationsisgoodandclear,typicalofSierrasnowmelt.However,duetoagriculturalreturnflowsandpastminingactivities,thesectionoftheriverfromMcSwainReservoirtotheSanJoaquinRiverhasbeenplacedontheCleanWaterAct(CWA)Section303(d)listofimpairedwatersforchlorpyrifos,diazinon,Escherichiacoli(E.coli),groupApesticides,temperature,unknowntoxicsandmercury(StateWaterResourcesControlBoard2010).

Groundwater

TheproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectislocatedintheSanJoaquinValleyGroundwaterBasin,MercedSubbasin(Basin#5‐22.04).TheMercedSubbasinisapproximately491,000acresor767squaremiles.Estimationsoftotalstoragecapacityofthesubbasinandtheamountofwaterinstorageasof1995werecalculatedusinganestimatedspecificyieldof9.0%andwaterlevelscollectedbyDWRCooperators.Accordingtothesecalculations,thetotalstoragecapacityofthesubbasinisestimatedtobe21,100,000acre‐feet(CaliforniaDepartmentofWaterResources2004).

Thegroundwaterqualityinthesubbasinischaracterizedbyacalcium‐magnesiumbicarbonateatthebasininterior,sodiumbicarbonatetothewest,andcalcium‐sodiumbicarbonatetothesouth.TotalDissolvedSolids(TDS)rangefrom100to3,600milligramsperliter(mg/L),withatypicalrangeof200to400mg/L.Inaddition,therearelocalizedimpairmentsofhighhardnessvalues,iron,nitrate,andchloride(DepartmentofWaterResources2004).

Flooding

Theprojectsiteislocatedoutsideofthe100‐yearfloodplainoftheMercedRiver.TheFederalEmergencyManagementAgency(FEMA)delineates100‐yearfloodplainsandpublishestheinformationonFloodInsuranceRateMaps(FIRMs).AccordingtotheFIRM(Panel#06047C0175G),theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectislocatedwithinZoneX,definedbyFEMAasanareadeterminedtobeoutsidethe0.2%annualchancefloodplain(FederalEmergencyManagementAgency2008)(Figure6).

Discussion

The2011IS/MNDconcludedthattheexpansionprojectwouldhaveless‐than‐significantimpactsonelementsoftheCEQAchecklistrelatedtowaterquality,groundwaterrecharge,drainagepatterns,stormwaterrunoff,flooding,constructionwithinthe100‐yearfloodplain,orinundationbyseiche,tsunami,ormudflow.Nomitigationwasrequired.

3‐46

July 2013ICF 00237.13

Checklistitem:a,b

Theexpandedwinemakingprocessunderthepreviouslyapprovedexpansionprojectwouldrequireadditionalwateruseofapproximately90,000gallonsperday(gpd)duringoff‐crushseasonand270,000gpdduringcrushseason.WaterfortheexpansionwouldbesourcedfromexistingwaterwellslocatedontheGalloproperty.Theproposedmodificationtothepermitcallsforanadditional215cooperagetanks.However,theseadditionaltankswouldnotincreasetheplantcapacity,butratherserveaswinestorageduringtheoff‐season.

AGroundwaterPumpingImpactsEvaluationwascompletedbyBrunsingAssociatesinSeptember2011todetermineiftheexistingwellswouldhavesufficientcapacitytoservethewatersupplydemandofthepreviouslyapprovedexpansionproject.Thestudyincludedpumpingofgroundwaterfromexistingwellsatmaximumcapacityfora24hourperiodtoidentifytheradiusofinfluence(ROI),oraffectedareawhereadverseimpactonthegroundwatertablewouldbeexpected.ThepumptestresultsidentifiedthattheROIrangedfrom650to700feetaroundeachwellatthemaximumpumpingrate.Basedontheseresults,thestudyconcludedthatifexistingwellswerepumpedatthemaximumratetosupplytheamountofwaterrequiredforincreasedwineproduction,theassociatedROIwouldbelessthanthemaximumrangeobservedduringthepumptest.Inaddition,becauseoftheproject’sproximitytotheMercedRiver,thegroundwatertablerechargesmorequicklythaninotherareas.Forthesereasons,andbecausetheproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldnotincreasewineproduction,itisnotanticipatedthattheproposedmodificationwouldsubstantiallyimpactthegroundwatertableorsubstantiallylowertheaquifer.Theprojectwouldalsonothaveanimpactonwaterqualityinthearea.Thisimpactisconsideredtobelessthansignificant.

Checklistitem:c,d

TheexistingdrainagepatternatthepreviouslyapprovedEastsideExpansionprojectsite,aswellasthe2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsite,isfromnortheasttosouthwest,drainingtowardtheeast‐westportionofRiverRoadsouthofthewinery.StormwateriscollectedbytheexistingsystemofditchesalongRiverRoadandintheadjacentagriculturalfields.Runoffcollectedattheexistingwineryfacilityflowstoasumpandispumpedtotheexistingprocesswastewatermanagementsysteminaccordancewiththewinery’sWasteDischargeRequirements(WDR).

Surfacerunofffromthe2‐acreexpansionareaisprojectedtocontinuetoflowtothesouthwest.Asstatedinthe2011IS/MND,anewdrainageswalerunningalongtheeasternedgeofthewinerywouldbeplacedtointerceptrunoffanddirectitaroundthesoutheasterncornerofthefacilitywhereitwouldbedissipatedtosheetflowandreturnedtotheexistingdrainagepattern.CombinedstormwaterandprocesswastewatercollectedattheprocessingareasconstructedaspartofthepreviouslyapprovedEastsideExpansion(approximately18acres)wouldflowacrossconcreteandasphaltsurfacestonewdropinletsanddrainbygravitytonewandexistingsumps.Stormwaterwouldbepumpedfromthesumpstotheexistingprocesswastewatermanagementsystem,whereitwouldbetreatedandreleasedinaccordancewiththewinery’sWDRs.Theadditionofimpervioussurfaceassociatedwiththenewcooperagetanksisnotanticipatedtoalteranyexistingdrainagepatterns,includingthatoftheMercedRiver,becausealladditionalstormwaterflowwouldbecapturedandprocessedandthendischargedtolandasdescribedabove.The215newtankswoulduse2acresofland.Runoffwouldbehandledthesameaspreviouslydescribed.Thisimpactisthereforeconsideredlessthansignificant.

Merced

ExistingFacilities

River Rd

River RdConnect to

(E) Sump

Connect to NewSD System

Collected StormwaterReturned to Sheet Flow

LWINEFacilities

Irrigation WaterStorage Pond

New Earth SwaleAround ProjectPerimeter

Sources: Bing Maps Aerial (2010)

0 600 1,200300Feet

LegendExpansion Site 2011

100-year Flood Zone

Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map Database(Federal Emergency Management Agency 2008)

Approximate limits of proposed development to discharge to existing adjacent runoff pattern

Approximate limits of proposeddevelopment with runoff diverted to PW ponds

Proposed Modifications 2013

New Storm Drain

Existing Process WastewaterCollection Tank

Figure 6Project Area Flood Zone and Proposed Drainage

3‐47

July 2013ICF 00237.13

Checklistitem:e,f

Asdescribedinthe2011IS/MND,theexpandedwinemakingprocessforthepreviouslyapprovedEastsideExpansionwouldgenerateadditionaldischargewaterofapproximately90,000gpdduringoff‐crushseasonand270,000gpdduringcrushseason.ThewateriscurrentlytreatedandlandappliedpursuanttoGallo’sexistingWDRs.TheWDRpermitsdischargeofupto4.5milliongallonsdailyofprocesswater;currentvolumestotalabout3.2milliongallonsdaily.Theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldnotincreaseproductionandisnotanticipatedtoincreaseprocesswaterorwatertreatmentmethods.Inaddition,uponcompletionoftheapprovedE.&J.GalloWinery(Gallo)LivingstonWaterInnovationandEnergyFacility(LWINEFacility),overallwastewaterdischargewillbereducedasawhole.

Asstatedinthe2011IS/MND,wastewatervolumeswouldbesignificantlyreducedthroughimplementationofthefollowingconservationmeasures.

Useofcentrifugestoreduceproductandsolidsinwastewater,whichreducesthevolumeandamountofalcoholandbiochemicaloxygendemand(BOD)inthewastewater.

MaximizetheuseofonsitedistillationtoreducethealcoholandBODinthewastewater.

Minimizecleaningwaterneededthroughrecyclingcleaningwaterforheatexchangersandtanks.

TheexistingWDRwouldcontinuetobefollowedandeffluentprocesswaterwouldcontinuetobemonitoredforwaterquality.Inaddition,soilandgroundwaterwouldalsocontinuetobetestedforconstituentsofconcern.Ifwaterqualitymonitoringdeterminesthattheprocesswastewaterbeingappliedtolandisaffectingsoilandultimatelygroundwaterquality,thentheapplicantisrequiredtoimplementprovisionsintheWDRtomitigatetheissue.Inaddition,temporaryconstruction‐relatedwaterqualityimpactswouldbemitigatedbyadheringtotheNPDESConstructionGeneralPermitandrequiredCSWPPP.

WithimplementationoftheWDR,itisanticipatedthattheadditionalprocesswaterwouldnotimpactwaterqualityandthisimpactisconsideredtobelessthansignificant.Additionaldiscussionofdrainageimpactsisdiscussedbelow.

Checklistitem:g,h,i

Asstatedabove,theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectisnotlocatedwithinthe100‐yearfloodplainandthereforewouldnotimpedeorredirectfloodflows.Thisimpactisthereforeconsideredlessthansignificant.

Checklistitem:j

Duetothelongdistanceofthe2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsitefromtheoceanoralargelake,anditslocationonrelativelyflatground,theriskofexposingpeopleorstructurestoatsunami,seicheandmudflowisverylow.Therewouldbenoimpact.

3‐48

July 2013ICF 00237.13

X.LandUseandPlanning

NoImpact

Wouldtheproject:

a. Physicallydivideanestablishedcommunity?

b. Conflictwithanyapplicablelanduseplan,policy,orregulationofanagencywithjurisdictionovertheproject(including,butnotlimitedto,ageneralplan,specificplan,localcoastalprogram,orzoningordinance)adoptedforthepurposeofavoidingormitigatinganenvironmentaleffect?

c. Conflictwithanyapplicablehabitatconservationplanornaturalcommunityconservationplan?

The2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsitearelocatedinaruralagriculturalsettingwithadjacentwineryoperationsandwineproductionuses.Theentire2011expansionsiteandthe2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsiteareunderaWilliamsonActcontract.Noresidentialusesorassociatedhousingunitsareonornearthe2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsite.ThenearestcommunityistheCityofLivingston,approximately4.5milesnortheastoftheprojectarea.

The2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsitearelocatedinanunincorporatedareaofMercedCountyandisunderthejurisdictionoftheCounty’sGeneralPlanandzoningregulations.TheGeneralPlanLandUsedesignationfortheprojectsiteisAgricultural(MercedCounty1990).OtherlandusespermittedonlandsdesignatedasAgriculturalincludelivestockfacilities,wastewaterlagoons,andagriculturalcommercialfacilities.TheexistingwineryisconsideredanagriculturalcommercialfacilityandispermittedforoperationbytheCountyunderaConditionalUsePermit(CUP2714).

ZoningintheproposedprojectareaisGeneralAgricultural(A‐1)pertheCounty’szoningregulations.TheGeneralAgriculturaldesignationallowsagriculturalprocessingplantsandcrop,orchard,orvineyardproduction,andagriculturalmanufacturingandstorageuses(Chapter18.02.020).Asdiscussedabove,theGalloWineryisconsideredamanufacturingandstorageuseasdefinedbytheCountyzoningcode.

Discussion

Checklistitem:a

The2011IS/MNDconcludedthattheexpansionprojectwouldresultinless‐than‐significantimpactsonlanduse,andnomitigationwasrequired.Theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectdoesnotincludeexpansionoffacilitiesintoadjacentareasofdifferentlanduses.ThenearestcommunityistheCityofLivingston,whichislocated4.5milesnortheastoftheprojectarea.

3‐49

July 2013ICF 00237.13

Therefore,constructionandimplementationoftheexpandedwineryfacilitywouldnotresultinthedivisionofacommunity,andtherewouldbenoimpact.

Checklistitem:b

TheproposedmodificationwouldbeconsistentwiththecurrentagriculturallandusedesignationandwouldmeetallofthecriterialistedintheCountyGeneralPlanforitsproposedlanduses.Therefore,theproposedmodificationwouldnotconflictwithanyapplicablelanduseplan,policy,orregulation,andpotentialprojectimpactsareconsideredlessthansignificant.

Checklistitem:c

Thereisnohabitatconservationplanornaturalcommunityconservationplanthatappliestothe2‐acrerevisionarea.Therefore,theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldnotconflictwithanysuchplan,andtherewouldbenoimpact.

3‐50

July 2013ICF 00237.13

XI.MineralResources

NoImpact

Wouldtheproject:

a. Resultinthelossofavailabilityofaknownmineralresourcethatwouldbeofvaluetotheregionandtheresidentsofthestate?

b. Resultinthelossofavailabilityofalocallyimportantmineralresourcerecoverysitedelineatedonalocalgeneralplan,specificplan,orotherlanduseplan?

TheMineralResourceZone(MRZ)MapforConcreteAggregateinMercedCounty(Clinkenbeard1999)indicatesthatthe2acreareaproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsiteislocatedinanMRZ‐1zone,meaningtherearenoresourcespresent.Theprojectsitehasbeenhistoricallyusedasagriculturallandandtherearenoexistingminingoperationsintheimmediatevicinityoftheprojectsite.

Discussion

Checklistitem:a,b

The2011IS/MNDconcludedthattheexpansionprojectwouldhaveless‐than‐significantimpactsonmineralresources,andnomitigationwasrequired.Asdiscussedabove,the2acreareaproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsiteisnotcurrentlyusedformining,andthereisnomineralextractionrequiredforconstructionoroperationoftheprojectsuchthatmineralresourcesofregionalorstatewidevaluewouldbereduced.ThesiteisalsonotwithinamineralresourceareaasdefinedbytheMRZMap.Therefore,therewouldbenoimpact.

3‐51

July 2013ICF 00237.13

XII.Noise

NoImpact

Wouldtheproject:

a. Exposepersonstoorgeneratenoiselevelsinexcessofstandardsestablishedinalocalgeneralplanornoiseordinanceorapplicablestandardsofotheragencies?

b. Exposepersonstoorgenerateexcessivegroundbornevibrationorgroundbornenoiselevels?

c. Resultinasubstantialpermanentincreaseinambientnoiselevelsintheprojectvicinityabovelevelsexistingwithouttheproject?

d. Resultinasubstantialtemporaryorperiodicincreaseinambientnoiselevelsintheprojectvicinityabovelevelsexistingwithouttheproject?

e. Belocatedwithinanairportlanduseplanarea,or,wheresuchaplanhasnotbeenadopted,withintwomilesofapublicairportorpublicuseairportandexposepeopleresidingorworkingintheprojectareatoexcessivenoiselevels?

f. Belocatedinthevicinityofaprivateairstripandexposepeopleresidingorworkingintheprojectareatoexcessivenoiselevels?

AnEnvironmentalNoiseAssessmentreportwaspreparedbyJ.C.Brennan&Associates,Inc.forthe2011IS/MND(J.C.Brennan&Associates2011).Basedupontherelativelocationoftheapproved2011expansionsiteandthe2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsite,thisreportisapplicabletothepresentstudy.

Noise Terminology

Noiseiscommonlydefinedasunwantedsoundthatannoysordisturbspeopleandpotentiallycausesanadversepsychologicalorphysiologicaleffectonhumanhealth.Becausenoiseisanenvironmentalpollutantthatcaninterferewithhumanactivities,evaluationofnoiseisnecessarywhenconsideringtheenvironmentalimpactsofaproposedproject.

Soundismechanicalenergy(vibration)transmittedbypressurewavesoveramediumsuchasairorwater.Soundischaracterizedbyvariousparametersthatincludetherateofoscillationofsoundwaves(frequency),thespeedofpropagation,andthepressurelevelorenergycontent(amplitude).Inparticular,thesoundpressurelevelisthemostcommondescriptorusedtocharacterizetheloudnessofanambient(existing)soundlevel.Althoughthedecibel(dB)scale,alogarithmicscale,is

3‐52

July 2013ICF 00237.13

usedtoquantifysoundintensity,itdoesnotaccuratelydescribehowsoundintensityisperceivedbyhumanhearing.Thehumanearisnotequallysensitivetoallfrequenciesintheentirespectrum,sonoisemeasurementsareweightedmoreheavilyforfrequenciestowhichhumansaresensitiveinaprocesscalled“A‐weighting,”writtenas“dBA”andreferredtoas“A‐weighteddecibels“.

Ingeneral,humansoundperceptionissuchthatachangeinsoundlevelof1dBcannottypicallybeperceivedbythehumanear,achangeof3dBisjustnoticeable,achangeof5dBisclearlynoticeable,andachangeof10dBisperceivedasdoublingorhalvingthesoundlevel.

Differenttypesofmeasurementsareusedtocharacterizethetime‐varyingnatureofsound.Thesemeasurementsincludetheequivalentsoundlevel(Leq),theminimumandmaximumsoundlevels(LminandLmax),percentile‐exceededsoundlevels(suchasL10,L20),theday‐nightsoundlevel(Ldn),andthecommunitynoiseequivalentlevel(CNEL).LdnandCNELvaluesdifferbylessthan1dB.Asamatterofpractice,LdnandCNELvaluesareconsideredtobeequivalentandaretreatedassuchinthisassessment.

Existing Noise Receptors

Somelandusesareconsideredmoresensitivetoambientnoiselevelsthanothers.Landusesoftenassociatedwithsensitivereceptorsgenerallyincluderesidences,schools,libraries,andhospitals.

Sensitivityisafunctionofnoiseexposure(intermsofbothexposuredurationandinsulationfromnoise)andthetypesofactivitiesinvolved.Inthevicinityoftheexistingwinery,thelandusesareprimarilyagriculturalwithsomesinglefamilyresidences.Thenearestresidencesarelocatedover2,000feetfromtheexpansionsite(Figure7).

Onsite Noise Sources

Asstatedinthe2011IS/MND,existingnoisesourcesfromonsiteoperationsatGalloWineryincludeboilers,coolingtowers,grapepresses,rotaryscreens,electricmotorsforconveyorsystems,andonsitetrucktraffic.Theboilersandtowersarelocatedonthewestsideofthefacility.Currently,pressesandrotaryscreensarelocatedonboththewestandeastsidesofthefacility,andtrucktrafficoccursalongthenorthernperimeterofthefacility.Theprimarynoisefromboilersandcoolingtowersisconfinedtothewestandsouthwestsidesofthefacility,andthemajorityofexistingnoisefromthefacilityisshieldedontheeastsidebytheexistingfermentationtanks.

Discussion

Checklistitem:a

The2011IS/MNDconcludedthatnoiseimpactsforoffsitetrucktraffic,onsitetrucktraffic,newpressesandconveyors,andcoolingandrefrigerationsystemswouldbelessthansignificant.Theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldnotincreaseproductionandthereforewouldnotrequireanyadditionaltrucktripsforgrapedelivery.Theproposedmodificationalsodoesnotinvolvenewpresses,conveyors,orcooling/refrigerationsystems.Thisimpactislessthansignificantandnomitigationisrequired.

Checklistitem:b

The2011IS/MNDconcludedthatimpactsfromconstructionvibrationwouldbelessthansignificant,andnomitigationwasrequired.Constructionoftheproposedmodificationtothe

R-4R-1

River Rd

Magnolia Ave

River Rd

Vinewood Ave

Figure 7Noise Sensitive Receptors

s…00

2,0001,0000

500 1,500 2,500

Legend

Residence

Expansion Site 2011

Image: Google Inc. 2013. Google Earth Pro, Version 7.0. Mountain View, CA. Accessed: July 22, 2013.

3‐53

July 2013ICF 00237.13

approvedprojectcouldresultintemporaryincreasesinvibrationlevels.However,duetothedistancebetweentheconstructionareaandthenearestsensitivereceptor,itisexpectedthatconstruction‐relatedvibrationimpactswouldnotcauseanystructuraldamageorhumanannoyance.Thisimpactwouldbelessthansignificantandnomitigationisrequired.

Checklistitem:c

The2011IS/MNDstatedthatadditionalonsitenoiseassociatedwithtruckcirculation,grapedeliveries,coolingequipment,andequipmentoperationscouldresultinpermanentincreasesinambientnoiseinthesurroundingarea.Thiswasidentifiedasapotentiallysignificantimpact.MitigationMeasureNOI‐1,RepositionEvaporatorCondenserUnits,wouldreducethisimpacttolessthansignificant.Theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldnotincludeadditionaltruckcirculation,grapedeliveries,coolingequipmentorotherfeaturesthatwouldcreatepermanentincreasesinambientnoise.Thisimpactwouldbelessthansignificantandnoadditionalmitigationisrequired.

Checklistitem:d

The2011IS/MNDconcludedthatconstruction‐relatednoisewouldresultinaless‐than‐significantimpactandnomitigationwasrequired.Constructionoftheproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldincludeproject‐generatednoisefromtrucksdeliveringconstructionequipmentandmaterialsanduseofheavydutyconstructionequipmentattheprojectsite.AsstatedinChapter2,ProjectDescription,constructionequipmentwouldincludebulldozers,backhoes,loaders,trenchers,concretetrucks,dumptrucks,vibratorycompactors,watertrucks,forklifts,andheavydeliverytrucks.Consequently,constructionoftheproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldtemporarilyincreasenoiselevelsinthesurroundingarea.Forthepreviouslyapprovedexpansionproject,J.C.Brennan&Associates,Inc.conductedconstructionnoisemodelingtopredictincreasesinnoiselevelsatthenearestresidentialpropertylinetotheeastoftheexpansionsite.Projectconstructionnoisewaspredictedtobeapproximately54dBAonanhourlybasis(Leq)uptoamaximum(Lmax)of59dBA.Thesenoiselevelsareexpectedtobesimilaratthe2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsite,whichisadjacenttotheexpansionsite.ThesepredictednoiselevelswouldnotexceedtheCounty’snoisestandardsforconstructionnoise.Additionally,byadheringtotherequirementsoftheCounty’szoningcode,whichrequiresconstructiontobelimitedtothedaytimehoursbetween7:00a.m.and6:00p.m.,andcontinuingmufflingofallconstructionequipment(Ord.1586(part),1977),potentialimpactsresultingfromtemporaryincreasesinconstruction‐relatednoisewouldbelessthansignificantandnomitigationisrequired.

Checklistitem:e,f

TheclosestpublicairportisTurlockMunicipalAirport,locatedapproximately10milesnortheastoftheprojectsite,andtheclosestprivateairstripistheStevensonStrip,locatedapproximately4.5milessouthwestoftheprojectsite.Therewouldbenoimpactrelatedtoexposureofemployeestoexcessivenoisefromairportuses.

3‐54

July 2013ICF 00237.13

XIII.PopulationandHousing

NoImpact

Wouldtheproject:

a. Inducesubstantialpopulationgrowthinanarea,eitherdirectly(e.g.,byproposingnewhomesandbusinesses)orindirectly(e.g.,throughextensionofroadsorotherinfrastructure)?

b. Displaceasubstantialnumberofexistinghousingunits,necessitatingtheconstructionofreplacementhousingelsewhere?

c. Displaceasubstantialnumberofpeople,necessitatingtheconstructionofreplacementhousingelsewhere?

ThenearestcommunitytotheproposedprojectistheCityofLivingston,locatedapproximately4.5milestothenortheast.The2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsiteispartofacommercialmanufacturingprojectanddoesnotincludeanyresidentialdevelopment.

Constructionofthepreviouslyapprovedexpansionprojectwouldrequireapproximately10–60workersduringeachconstructionphaseoverthecourseofprojectconstructionandapproximately45permanentemployees(9duringtheregularseasonand36duringthecrushseason).Theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldrequireapproximately5–25workersduringconstructionand,foroperations,anadditionalsixpermanentandsixseasonalemployees(sixduringtheoff‐seasonandanadditionalsixduringcrushseason).

Discussion

Checklistitem:a

The2011IS/MNDconcludedthattherewouldbenoimpactonpopulationgrowthasaresultoftheexpansionproject,andnomitigationwasrequired.Theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectinvolvesrelocatingtheadministrationandprocessbuildingswithintheexistingsite,andaddinga2‐acreareatoholdcooperagetanks.Itdoesnotincludetheconstructionofanyresidentialunits.Constructionoftheprojectwouldresultinatemporaryincreaseinconstruction‐relatedjobopportunitiesinthelocalarea.However,itisrelativelyunlikelythatconstructionworkerswouldrelocatetheirplaceofresidenceasaconsequenceoftemporarilyworkingontheproject.Additionally,constructionworkerscanbeexpectedtobedrawnfromtheexistingconstructionlaborforceinthesurroundingcommunities.

Theprojectcouldresultinanindirectincreaseinpopulationthroughtheestablishmentofnewjobopportunitiesassociatedwiththeoverallwineryfacility.Theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldrequireanadditional12employees(sixpermanentandsixseasonal),whichresultsinatotalof15employeesduringtheoffseasonand42employeesduringthecrushseasonfortheentireproject.Crushseasonistypicallyonly3.5monthslong;employeesduringthistimeperiod

3‐55

July 2013ICF 00237.13

wouldbetemporary,seasonalworkers.Itisanticipatedthattemporaryandpermanentemployeeswouldalreadyresidelocally,andsowouldbepartoftheexistinglocalpopulation.Alternatively,seasonalworkerswhodonotalreadyhaveexistinghousingarrangementscouldbemigrantworkersthatareaccommodatedintemporaryhousinganddonotgenerateademandforadditionalpermanenthousing.Theproposedprojectwouldthereforenotresultinsubstantialindirectpopulationgrowth.Additionally,theprojectdoesnotincludeanynewroadsoroffsiteinfrastructurethatwouldresultinindirectpopulationgrowth.Therewouldbenoimpact.

Checklistitem:b,c

The2acreareaproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsiteconsistsofvacantagriculturalland.Therearenoexistingresidentialhousingunitsonthesite.Oneresidenceislocatedapproximately2,000feetfromtheprojectboundary.Thisunitwouldnotbeaffectedbytheproject.Therefore,theprojectwouldnotdisplaceanyexistinghousingorresultinpeoplebeingdisplacedfromtheirhousing,andwouldnotrequiretheconstructionofreplacementhousingelsewhere.Therewouldbenoimpact.

3‐56

July 2013ICF 00237.13

XIV.PublicServices

NoImpact

Wouldtheproject:

a. Resultinsubstantialadversephysicalimpactsassociatedwiththeprovisionofneworphysicallyalteredgovernmentalfacilitiesoraneedforneworphysicallyalteredgovernmentalfacilities,theconstructionofwhichcouldcausesignificantenvironmentalimpacts,inordertomaintainacceptableserviceratios,responsetimes,orotherperformanceobjectivesforanyofthefollowingpublicservices:

Fireprotection?

Policeprotection?

Schools?

Parks?

Otherpublicfacilities?

Fire Protection

TheMercedCountyFireDepartment(MCFD)isresponsibleforprovidingfiresuppressionservicesthroughoutthecounty.LivingstonFireStation96wouldprimarilyservetheprojectsiteintheeventthatfireprotectionservicesarerequested.LivingstonFireStation96islocatedat1490CStreet,whichisabout5milesnortheastoftheexpansionsite.TheMCFDhascontractedwiththeCaliforniaDepartmentofForestryandFireProtection(CALFIRE)toprovideadditionalfireprotectionservices.TheCountyFireCode(Section10.301(c))requiresallprojectstoprovideapprovedwatersuppliescapableofdeliveringadequatewaterflowforfireprotectiontoallpremisesuponwhichbuildingsorportionsofbuildingsareconstructed.AccordingtotheGeneralPlan,forlargerdevelopments,twoaccesspointsarerequiredtoensureescapeandemergencyserviceoptions.

Police Services

PoliceservicesfortheprojectareaareprovidedbytheMercedCountySheriff’sDepartment.TheneareststationtotheprojectsiteistheCFBludworth(North)SubStationon9481ShanksRoadinDelhi.

Schools

ResidentsintheprojectareaareservedbytheLivingstonUnionSchoolDistrict(LUSD)andtheMercedUnifiedHighSchoolDistrict(MUHSD).TheLUSDofferspre‐kindergartenthrougheighthgradeandiscomprisedoftwopreschools,threeelementaryschoolsandonemiddleschool.The

3‐57

July 2013ICF 00237.13

MUHSDofferseighththroughtwelfthgradeandiscomprisedofeighthighschools.TheMUHSDservesthecommunitiesofAtwater,Livingston,Merced,andthesurroundingarea.

RefertoSectionXIV,Recreationforadiscussionofparkandrecreationalfacilities.

Discussion

Checklistitem:a

Fire protection

The2011IS/MNDconcludedthattheexpansionwouldnotcreateanadditionaldemandforfireprotection.TheMCFDhasestablishedrequirementsforonsitewaterstorageforfireprotectionandadequatefiredepartmentaccess.Thepreviouslyapprovedexpansionprojecthasthreeaccesspointsthatcomplywithallapplicablefiresafetyregulations.Further,theCountyhasestablishedthatnewdevelopmentsshallpaytheirfairshareofcostsforfireprotectionfacilitiesandservices.AstheMCFDalreadyservestheexistingGalloWinery,thepreviouslyapprovedexpansionprojectaswellasthe2‐acreexpansionwouldcomplywithapplicablefiresafetyregulations,andwouldpayfireimpactfees.Theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectisnotanticipatedtocreateanyadditionaldemandforfireprotection.Thisimpactwouldbelessthansignificantandnomitigationisrequired.

Police protection

The2011IS/MNDconcludedthattherewouldbelessthansignificantimpactsonpoliceprotection.Thepreviouslyapprovedexpansionprojectrequiredanincreaseofninepermanentemployeesduringtheoff‐crushseasonand36seasonalemployeesduringthecrushseason.Theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldadd12additionalemployees(sixduringtheoff‐crushseasonandsixduringthecrushseason).Accordingtothe2011IS/MND,afterapreliminaryevaluationoftheprojectbytheSheriff’sDepartment,theDepartmentstatedtheywouldbeabletoprovideadequatelawenforcementtothecompletedfacility.Theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectandadditionalincreaseinemployeesisnotanticipatedtofurtherimpactlawenforcementatthesite.Withtheminimalincreaseinpoliceprotectionneedsandtheadequateavailabilityofexistingfacilitiesandserviceavailabletoservetheproject,impactsonpoliceprotectionwouldbelessthansignificantandnomitigationisrequired.

Schools

The2011IS/MNDconcludedthattheexpansionwouldnotresultinasignificantincreaseinthenumberofstudentsattendinglocalschoolsandthereforewasconsideredlessthansignificant.Theproposedprojectdoesnotincludeanyresidentialdevelopment.Therefore,theprojectwouldhavenodirectimpactsrelatedtoincreasesinthenumberofstudentsattendingeitheroftheseschooldistricts.Thepreviouslyapprovedexpansionprojectwouldcreateapproximately45newjobs(9permanentand36seasonal).Theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldadd12morejobs(6permanentand6seasonal).Itisanticipatedthatthemajorityofthenewjobswouldbefilledbyindividualscurrentlylivinginthecommunityand/orpeoplethatwouldcommutetothefacilityfromnearbyareaswithintheCounty.Additionally,asdiscussedinChapter2,ProjectDescription,constructionoftheprojectwouldrequireconstructionworkersthroughoutthefive

3‐58

July 2013ICF 00237.13

phasesofprojectconstruction.Thiswouldbeatemporaryincreaseinworkersandtherewouldnotbeapermanentincreaseinpopulationintheprojectvicinityattendingschools.Therefore,theprojectwouldnotresultinacommensurateincreaseinthenumberofstudentsattendingtheLUSDorMUHSDschools.Impactswouldbelessthansignificantandnomitigationisrequired.

RefertoSectionXV,Recreation,foradiscussionofimpactsonparkandrecreationalfacilities.Thisimpactislessthansignificantandnomitigationisrequired.

Other Public Facilities

Theproposedprojectwouldnotaffectthedemandforanyotherpublicservices.Noimpactwouldoccur.

3‐59

July 2013ICF 00237.13

XV.Recreation

NoImpact

Wouldtheproject:

a. Increasetheuseofexistingneighborhoodandregionalparksorotherrecreationalfacilitiessuchthatsubstantialphysicaldeteriorationofthefacilitywouldoccurorbeaccelerated?

b. Includerecreationalfacilitiesorrequiretheconstructionorexpansionofrecreationalfacilitiesthatmighthaveanadversephysicaleffectontheenvironment?

ParksandrecreationservicesareprovidedbytheCounty’sParks&RecreationDepartment.Noparksorrecreationalfacilitiesarelocatedonthe2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsite.TheclosestrecreationfacilityisHagamanPark,locatedonthenorthsideofRiverRoad,approximately2milessouthwestoftheexpansionsite.TheCountyusesanacreage/populationratioforparkstodetermineparklandneedsinunincorporatedcommunities.

Discussion

Checklistitem:a,b

The2011IS/MNDconcludedthattheexpansionprojectwouldhavealess‐than‐significantimpactonrecreation,andnomitigationwasrequired.Openspaceandparksaretypicallyprovidedtoserveresidentialpopulations.Theprojectdoesnotproposeresidentialunits,andwouldthereforenotpermanentlyincreasedemandonparksthroughincreasedpopulation.Theprojectdoesnotincludetheconstructionorexpansionofanyrecreationalfacilities.ConstructionworkersmightusenearbyHagamanParkforlunchbreakorotherrecreationalpurposes.However,theincreaseinconstructionworkerswouldbetemporary,andnopermanentchangeintheuseofrecreationalfacilitiesislikelytoresultfromprojectimplementation.Therefore,theprojectwouldnotincreasetheuseofexistingparkandrecreationalfacilities,wouldnotresultinthesubstantialdeteriorationofexistingparks,andwouldnotrequiretheconstructionorexpansionofnewrecreationalfacilities.Impactswouldbelessthansignificant.Nomitigationisrequired.

3‐60

July 2013ICF 00237.13

XVI.Transportation/Traffic

NoImpact

Wouldtheproject:

a. Conflictwithanapplicableplan,ordinance,orpolicyestablishingmeasuresofeffectivenessfortheperformanceofthecirculationsystem,takingintoaccountallmodesoftransportation,includingmasstransitandnon‐motorizedtravelandrelevantcomponentsofthecirculationsystem,including,butnotlimitedto,intersections,streets,highwaysandfreeways,pedestrianandbicyclepaths,andmasstransit?

b. Conflictwithanapplicablecongestionmanagementprogram,including,butnotlimitedto,level‐of‐servicestandardsandtraveldemandmeasuresorotherstandardsestablishedbythecountycongestionmanagementagencyfordesignatedroadsorhighways?

c. Resultinachangeinairtrafficpatterns,includingeitheranincreaseintrafficlevelsorachangeinlocationthatresultsinsubstantialsafetyrisks?

d. Substantiallyincreasehazardsbecauseofadesignfeature(e.g.,sharpcurvesordangerousintersections)orincompatibleuses(e.g.,farmequipment)?

e. Resultininadequateemergencyaccess?

f. Conflictwithadoptedpolicies,plans,orprogramsregardingpublictransit,bicycleorpedestrianfacilities,orotherwisedecreasetheperformanceorsafetyofsuchfacilities?

Theprojectsiteislocatedinaruralagriculturalareathatischaracterizedbyasystemofruralroads.ThenearesturbanizedareaistheCityofLivingston,approximately4.5milestotheeast.PrimaryregionalaccesstotheprojectareaisfromI‐5andSR99,bothnorth‐southfreeways.PrimarylocalaccesstotheGalloWineryisfromRiverRoad,atwo‐lanepavedroadthatrunsfromeasttowest.TheexistingfacilityisadjacenttoRiverRoadonthenorthandisgenerallylocatedbetweenWeirAvenueontheeastandGriffithAvenueonthewest.Threeaccesspointsleadintothefacility,allfromRiverRoad.ThemainemployeeandvisitoraccesstothesiteislocatedonaprivatedrivewayoffRiverRoad,withasecondprivateentrancefromRiverRoadtotheeasternpartofthefacility.TheprimarytruckentranceintothefacilityisfromGriffithAvenue.Bothoftheprivateentrancesalsoprovidesecondaryaccessintothefacilityfortrucks.TheGalloWineryisnotservedbyMerced

3‐61

July 2013ICF 00237.13

Countybustransit.BothRiverRoadandGriffithAvenuearerelativelynarrow,two‐lanecountryroadsthatdonotincludeaccommodationsforbicyclesorpedestrians.

ThemajorityoftraffictoandfromtheGalloWineryistrucktrafficforgrapedeliveryandoffsiteshippingofbulkwineandpomace.Existingdailytruckroundtripsareapproximatedas95and470duringtheoff‐crushandcrushseasons,respectively.Thepreviouslyapprovedexpansionprojectresultedinanincreaseofapproximately10and65truckroundtripsduringtheoff‐crushandcrushseasons,respectively.Thecrushseasontypicallylasts3.5months.Theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldnotresultinthegenerationofanyadditionalproducts,includingnoadditionalwineorpomace,andthereforenoadditionaltrucktripsforthosepurposes.

Discussion

The2011IS/MNDconcludedthatimpactsontransportation/trafficwouldbelessthansignificant,andnomitigationwasrequired.

Checklistitem:a,b

Primarytraffictoandfromthesiteduringconstructionwouldbetrucksforequipmentandmaterialsdeliveriesandconstructionworkers.Construction‐relatedtrafficwouldbetemporaryanditisexpectedthatmostconstructionequipmentwouldremainonsiteforthedurationofactivitiesundereachphase,therebyminimizingvehiculartripstoandfromtheprojectareaandtheexistingfacility.Theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldnotchangethenumberofoperationaltrucktripsbecausetherewouldbenoincreaseintheamountofproduction.Thisimpactwouldbelessthansignificantandnomitigationisrequired.

Theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldrequire12additionalemployees(sixpermanentandsixseasonal),sotheamountofworkertripstotheprojectsitewouldbeincreasedbyamaximumof12roundtrips,foratotalfortheapprovedexpansionplustheproposedmodificationof57roundtripsduringcrushseason.Thisisaslightincrease.Neitherconstruction‐noroperations‐relatedtrafficwouldresultinsubstantialchangestotheexistingcirculationsystemorresultincongestiononlocalroadways,becausetheoverallincreasesintrafficwouldbelargelytemporaryandareconsideredminimal.Thereforethisimpactwouldbelessthansignificantandnomitigationisrequired.

AnalysisofexistingandproposedparkinglotcapacityforMM11‐018inthe2011IS/MNDfoundthatsufficientparkingforexistingandfutureemployeeswouldbeavailableonsite.Noadditionalparkingisneededtoaccommodatetheslightincreaseinstaffing.

Checklistitem:c

Theprojectsiteisnotlocatedwithinanairportlanduseplanorwithinthevicinityofapublicuseairportorprivateairstrip.TurlockMunicipalAirport,theclosestpublicairporttotheprojectarea,islocatedapproximately10milestothenortheastatadistancewheretheprojectwouldnotimpactairtrafficpatterns.Noimpactwouldoccur.

Checklistitem:d

Theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectdoesnotincludeconstructionorexpansionofnewroadsandwouldnotintroduceincompatibleuses,astheywouldremainagricultural.However,aportionofRiverRoadhassufferedsignificantdegradationasaresultofheavytruckuse.The2011

3‐62

July 2013ICF 00237.13

IS/MNDstatedthatthisportionofRiverRoadcouldbeworsenedwiththeincreasedprojectrelated‐trucktraffic.Asaresultofthispotentialimpact,Gallofundedreconstructionofthisroadasrequiredasmitigationforapprovalofthe2011IS/MND.TherepairstoRiverRoadhavebeencompletedbyMercedCountyinadvanceofthe2013crushseason.Thisimpactwouldthereforebelessthansignificant.Theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldnotaddsubstantialincreasestotraffic,andwouldnotchangethisagreement.Thisimpactisconsideredlessthansignificantandnomitigationisrequired.

Checklistitem:e

Likethepreviouslyapprovedexpansionproject,emergencyaccesstothefacilityisviaRiverRoadandwouldremainunchanged.Trafficassociatedwithbothprojectconstructionandoperationisnotexpectedtorequireroadclosuresorotherwiseinterruptaccesstothefacility.Therefore,therewouldbenoimpact.

Checklistitem:f

Asdescribedabove,theGalloWineryisnotlocatedwithintheCounty’sbustransitservicearea,andbothRiverRoadandGriffithAvenuearetwo‐laneruralroadsthatdonotincludeaccommodationsforbicyclesorpedestrians.Therefore,therewouldbenoimpact.

3‐63

July 2013ICF 00237.13

XVII.UtilitiesandServiceSystems

NoImpact

Wouldtheproject:

a. ExceedwastewatertreatmentrequirementsoftheapplicableRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard?

b. Requireorresultintheconstructionofnewwaterorwastewatertreatmentfacilitiesorexpansionofexistingfacilities,theconstructionofwhichcouldcausesignificantenvironmentaleffects?

c. Requireorresultintheconstructionofnewstormwaterdrainagefacilitiesorexpansionofexistingfacilities,theconstructionofwhichcouldcausesignificantenvironmentaleffects?

d. Havesufficientwatersuppliesavailabletoservetheprojectfromexistingentitlementsandresources,orwouldneworexpandedentitlementsbeneeded?

e. Resultinadeterminationbythewastewatertreatmentproviderthatservesormayservetheprojectthatithasadequatecapacitytoservetheproject’sprojecteddemandinadditiontotheprovider’sexistingcommitments?

f. Beservedbyalandfillwithsufficientpermittedcapacitytoaccommodatetheproject’ssolidwastedisposalneeds?

g. Complywithfederal,state,andlocalstatutesandregulationsrelatedtosolidwaste?

WaterforthepreviouslyapprovedexpansionprojectwouldbesourcedfromexistingwaterwellslocatedontheGalloproperty.Theexistingwellsaresufficienttoservetheproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectarea,andnonewwaterwellsareproposed.Theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldnotchangetheamountofproductionandnodischargewaterinadditiontowhatwasanalyzedinthe2011IS/MNDisanticipated.

SolidwasteservicesandfacilitiesandoperationsinMercedCountyaregovernedbytheMercedCountyAssociationofGovernments(MCAG).Modesto/WintonDisposalinAtwaterprovidessolidwastecollection,recycling,transportation,anddisposalservicestotheprojectsite.TheprojectareaisservedbytheHighway59DisposalSiteinMerced.Theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldnotincreaseproduction,andadditionalsolidwasteabovewhatwasanalyzedinthe2011IS/MNDisnotanticipated.

3‐64

July 2013ICF 00237.13

Discussion

The2011IS/MNDconcludedthatimpactsonutilitiesandservicesystemswouldbelessthansignificantandnomitigationmeasureswererequired.

Checklistitem:a

Asstatedabove,theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldnotchangetheamountofproduction.Wastewaterwasanalyzedinthe2011IS/MND,andnoadditionaldischargewaterisanticipated.Inaddition,uponcompletionoftheapprovedE.&J.GalloWinery(Gallo)LivingstonWaterInnovationandEnergyFacility(LWINEFacility),overallwastewaterdischargewillbereducedasawhole.Thisimpactwouldbelessthansignificantandnomitigationisrequired.

Checklistitem:b

The2011IS/MNDstatedthattheincreaseinwateruseandwastewatergenerationwouldbeminimalandwouldnotrequireorresultintheconstructionofnewwaterorwastewatertreatmentfacilitiesorexpansionofexistingfacilities.Theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldnotgeneratewastewaterinexcessofwhatwasanalyzedinthe2011IS/MND.Thisimpactwouldbelessthansignificantandnomitigationisrequired.

Checklistitem:c

Theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldslightlyincreasetheamountofimpervioussurfacecreatedbytheoverallproject.However,asproject‐relatedstormwaterrunoffwouldbecollected,storedandappliedonsite,therewouldnotbeneedforexpansionorconstructionofnewstormwaterdrainagefacilities.Thisimpactisconsideredlessthansignificant.

Checklistitem:d

Watersupplyforthepreviouslyapprovedexpansionprojectisprovidedbyexistingonsitewells.The2011IS/MNDconcludedthatexistingwatersupplycapacityissufficientandwouldnotrequireconstructionofnewfacilities.Theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldnotincreasewateruse,becauseproductionwouldnotchange.Nootherwaterresourcesorentitlementswouldbeusedorbesignificantlyaffectedasaresultoftheproject.Thisimpactwouldbelessthansignificantandnomitigationisrequired.

Checklistitem:e

The2011IS/MNDconcludedthattheincreaseinproject‐relatedwastewaterdemandwouldbeminimalandwouldnotrequireconstructionofnewtreatmentfacilities.Theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldnotincreaseproductionandthereforeisnotanticipatedtocreatewastewaterinadditiontowhatwasanalyzedinthe2011IS/MND.Therefore,therewouldbenoimpact.

Checklistitem:f,g

Asdescribedabove,theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldnotincreaseproduction,andadditionalsolidwasteabovewhatwasanalyzedinthe2011IS/MNDisnotanticipated.The2011IS/MNDconcludedthatthepreviouslyapprovedEastsideExpansionwouldnotconflictwithanyfederal,state,orlocalstatutesrelatedtosolidwaste.Thiswouldalsobetrue

3‐65

July 2013ICF 00237.13

fortheproposedmodificationtotheapprovedproject,asadditionalsolidwasteisnotanticipated.Thisimpactwouldbelessthansignificantandnomitigationisrequired.

3‐66

July 2013ICF 00237.13

XVIII.MandatoryFindingsofSignificance

NoImpact

a. Doestheprojecthavethepotentialtodegradethequalityoftheenvironment,substantiallyreducethehabitatofafishorwildlifespecies,causeafishorwildlifepopulationtodropbelowself‐sustaininglevels,threatentoeliminateaplantoranimalcommunity,substantiallyreducethenumberorrestricttherangeofarareorendangeredplantoranimal,oreliminateimportantexamplesofthemajorperiodsofCaliforniahistoryorprehistory?

b. Doestheprojecthaveimpactsthatareindividuallylimitedbutcumulativelyconsiderable?(“Cumulativelyconsiderable”meansthattheincrementaleffectsofaprojectareconsiderablewhenviewedinconnectionwiththeeffectsofpastprojects,theeffectsofothercurrentprojects,andtheeffectsofprobablefutureprojects.)

c. Doestheprojecthaveenvironmentaleffectsthatwillcausesubstantialadverseeffectsonhumanbeings,eitherdirectlyorindirectly?

Checklistitem:a,b,c

Theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldnotdegradethequalityoftheenvironmentsuchthatprotectedbiologicalspeciesandhabitatorsignificantculturalresourceswouldbeeliminated.Theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldexpandtheexistingwineryproductionfacilitysiteby2acres,andwouldnotrequireexpansionofoffsitevineyardsorfacilities.Furthermore,implementationoftheprojectwouldnotchangetheexistingruralagriculturalsettingoragriculturalusesinwaysthatcouldcontributetocumulativelossofprimefarmlandsandCountylandsinagriculturalpreserve.Potentialhumanhealthrisksassociatedwithairquality,geologichazards,floodhazards,firehazards,hazardouswastes,ornoiseimpactswouldbeeitherlessthansignificantormitigatedtoalessthansignificantlevel.Therewouldnotbeanysubstantialadverseeffectsrelatedtoinadequateprovisionofemergencyresponseorotherpublicservicesasaresultofprojectimplementation.Therefore,theproposedmodificationtotheapprovedprojectwouldnotresultinsubstantialadverseeffectsonthehumanenvironment.

(New)MitigationMeasureBIO‐3:Conductapreconstructionground‐nestingbirdsurveyandestablishno‐disturbancebuffers,ifnecessary.

(New)MitigationMeasureBIO‐4:CompensateforlossofSwainson’shawkforaginghabitat

2011MitigationMeasureCR‐1:Implementplantoaddressdiscoveryofunanticipatedburiedculturalorpaleontologicalresources.

3‐67

July 2013ICF 00237.13

2011MitigationMeasureCR‐2:Implementplantoaddressdiscoveryofhumanremains.

2011MitigationMeasureCC‐1:ImplementbestmanagementpracticesforGHGemissions.

3‐68

July 2013ICF 00237.13

Applicants Agreement to Mitigation

Tocontrolthegenerationofconstruction‐relatedPM10emissions,theCountywillrequireconstructioncontractorstoprepareadustcontrolplanandsubmitittotheSJVAPCDatleast48hoursbeforeanyearthmovingorconstructionactivities.Aspreviouslyindicated,implementationofadustcontrolplanwouldsatisfytherequirementsofRegulationVIII(Siongpers.comm.).Potentialmeasuresthatmightbeincludedinthedustcontrolplancouldinclude,butarenotlimitedto,thefollowing.

Pre‐activity.

Pre‐watertheworksiteandphaseworktoreducetheamountofdisturbedsurfaceareaatanyonetime.

Activeoperations.

Applywatertodryareasduringleveling,grading,trenching,andearthmovingactivities.

Constructandmaintainwindbarriersandapplywaterordustsuppressantstothedisturbedsurfaceareas.

Inactiveoperations,includingafter‐workhours,weekends,andholidays.

Applywaterordustsuppressantsondisturbedsurfaceareastoformavisiblecrust,andrestrictvehicleaccesstomaintainthevisiblecrust.

Temporarystabilizationofareasthatremainunusedfor7ormoredays.

Restrictvehicularaccessandapplyandmaintainwaterordustsuppressantsonallun‐vegetatedareas.

Establishvegetationonallpreviouslydisturbedareas.

Applygravelandmaintainatallpreviouslydisturbedareas.

Pavepreviouslydisturbedareas.

Unpavedaccessandhaulroads,trafficandequipmentstorageareas.

Applywaterordustsuppressantstounpavedhaulandaccessroads.

Postaspeedlimitofnotmorethan15milesperhour,usingsignsateachentranceandagainevery500feet.

Waterordustsuppressantswillbeappliedtovehicletrafficandequipmentstorageareas.

Windevents.

Waterapplicationequipmentwillapplywatertocontrolfugitivedustduringwindevents,unlessunsafetodoso.

Outdoorconstructionactivitiesthatdisturbthesoilwillceasewhenevervisibledustemissionscannotbeeffectivelycontrolled.

Outdoorhandlingofbulkmaterials.

Waterordustsuppressantswillbeappliedwhenhandlingbulkmaterials.

3‐69

July 2013ICF 00237.13

Windbarrierswithlessthan50%porositywillbeinstalledandmaintained,andwaterordustsuppressantswillbeapplied.

Outdoorstorageofbulkmaterials.

Waterordustsuppressantswillbeappliedtostoragepiles.

Storagepileswillbecoveredwithtarps,plastic,orothersuitablematerialandanchoredinamannerthatpreventsthecoverfrombeingremovedbywindaction.

Windbarrierswithlessthan50%porositywillbeinstalledandmaintainedaroundthestoragepiles,andwaterordustsuppressantswillbeapplied.

Athree‐sidedstructurewithlessthan50%porositythatisatleastashighasthestoragepileswillbeused.

Onsitetransportingofbulkmaterials.

Vehiclespeedwillbelimitedontheworksite.

Allhaultruckswillbeloadedsuchthatthefreeboardisnotlessthan6incheswhentransportedacrossanypavedpublicaccessroad.

Asufficientamountofwaterwillbeappliedtothetopoftheloadtolimitvisibledustemissions.

Haultruckswillbecoveredwithatarporothersuitablecover.

Offsitetransportingofbulkmaterials.

Theinteriorofemptiedtruckcargocompartmentswillbecleanedorcoveredbeforeleavingthesite.

Spillageorlossofbulkmaterialsfromholesorotheropeningsinthecargocompartment’sfloor,sides,andtailgateswillbeprevented.

Outdoortransportusingachuteorconveyor:

Noopenchutesorconveyorswillbeused.

Chutesorconveyorswillbefullyenclosed.

Watersprayequipmentwillbeusedtosufficientlywetthematerials.

Transportedmaterialswillbewashedorscreenedtoremovefines(PM10orsmaller).

MitigationMeasureBIO‐3:Conductapreconstructionground‐nestingbirdsurveyandestablishno‐disturbancebuffers,ifnecessary.

Anestingbirdsurveywillbeconductedbyaqualifiedbiologistnomorethan15dayspriortocommencingconstructionworkduringthenestingseason(generallyMarch1toAugust31).Thesurveywillencompassthe2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsiteandatleast200feettothesouthandeastwithinundevelopedareasadjacenttothe2‐acres.Anadditionalsurveywillbeconductedpriortothestartofanewphaseorwheneverthereisabreakof15daysormoreduringthenestingseason.

Ifthepreconstructionsurveyindicatesthepresenceofmigratorybirdnestsinanyareasthatwouldbedirectlyaffectedbyvegetationremoval,constructionactivities,oranyotherground‐disturbingactivities,ano‐disturbancebufferwillbeestablishedbythebiologistaroundthenestingsite.Factorsdeterminingthebuffersizetypicallyincludethelevelofnoiseorconstructiondisturbance,lineofsightbetweenthenestandthedisturbance,ambientlevelsof

3‐70

July 2013ICF 00237.13

noiseandotherdisturbancesinthearea,andothertopographicalorartificialbarriers.Thesefactorswillbeanalyzedinordertomakeanappropriatedecisiononbufferdistances.Thedistance,extent,andnatureofthebufferswillbedeterminedbyaqualifiedwildlifebiologistcoordinatingwithanyapplicableregulatoryagencies(e.g.,CDFW,USFWS).

Toavoiddisturbanceordestructionofanestingsite,noconstructionwilloccurwithintheno‐disturbancebufferuntilafterthebreedingseason,oruntilaqualifiedwildlifebiologistdeterminesthattheyounghavefledged.AreportsummarizingthesurveyresultswillbesubmittedtoMercedCountyandapplicableregulatoryagencies.

MitigationMeasureBIO‐4:CompensateforlossofSwainson’shawkforaginghabitat

Theproposedprojectwillresultinthepermanentlossof2.0acresofsuitableSwainson’shawkforaginghabitat.Theclosestknownnestislocatedapproximately2.1milesfromthe2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsite.

TheMercedCountyPlanningDepartmenthasdevelopedastandardSwainson’shawkmitigationmeasurethat,whenimplemented,willmitigateforthelossofsuitableforaginghabitat.Compensationforthepermanentlossofforaginghabitatisbasedonthedistancefromthenearestnest,asprovidedinthetablebelow.DistancefromProjectBoundaryMitigationAcreageRatioa

Within1mile 1.00:1b

Between1and5miles 0.75:1a Ratiomeans[acresofmitigationland]to[acresofforaginghabitatimpacted].b Thisratioshallbe0.5:1iftheacquiredlandscanbeactivelymanagedforpreyproduction.

CompensationcanbeprovidedthroughfeetitleacquisitionorconservationeasementacquisitionofcomparableforaginghabitatwithimplementationofaCounty‐approvedhabitatmanagementplan.Alternatively,mitigationcreditsmaybepurchasedfromaCounty‐approvedmitigationbankforSwainson’shawkforaginghabitatinMercedCounty.AnoffsitehabitatmitigationplandescribingthemethodofcompensationmustbesubmittedtotheMercedCountyPlanningDepartmentwithin30daysofitsexecutionorpriortothestartofconstruction‐relatedactivities,whicheverisearlier.

2011MitigationMeasureCR‐1:StopWorkifburiedculturaldepositsareencounteredduringconstructionactivities.

Ifburiedculturalresourcessuchaschippedorgroundstone,historicdebris,orbuildingfoundationsareinadvertentlydiscoveredduringground‐disturbingactivities,workwillstopinthatareaandwithina100‐footradiusofthefinduntilaqualifiedarchaeologistcanassessthesignificanceofthefindand,ifnecessary,developaResponsePlan,withappropriatetreatmentmeasures,inconsultationwiththeCounty,theStateHistoricPreservationOfficer(SHPO),andotherappropriateagenciesandotherappropriateagencies.PreservationinplaceshallbethepreferredtreatmentmethodperCEQAGuidelinessec.15126.4(b)(avoidance,openspace,capping,easement).Datarecoveryofimportantinformationabouttheresource,research,orotheractionsdeterminedduringconsultation,isallowedifistheonlyfeasibletreatmentmethod.

July 2013ICF 00237.13

Chapter 4 References Cited

Printed References BauerAssociates.2011.ReportGeotechnicalInvestigation:E.&J.GalloWinery,GalloLivingston

EastsideExpansion,18000W.RiverRoad,Livingston,California.PreparedforSummitEngineering,Inc.October7.

J.C.Brennan&Associates.Inc.2011.EnvironmentalNoiseAssessment,E.&J.GalloWineryExpansion,MercedCounty,California.October18.(Job#2011‐162.)Auburn,CA.Preparedfor:ICFInternational,SanFrancisco,CA.

CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard2008.ClimateChangeScopingPlan.Available:<http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf>.Accessed:July12,2013.

CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard.2011a.AreaDesignationsMaps/StateandNational.Available:<http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm>.Accessed:June25,2013.

CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard.2011b.StatusofScopingPlanRecommendedMeasures.Available:<http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/status_of_scoping_plan_measures.pdf>.Accessed:July12,2013.

CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard.2011c.CaliforniaCap‐and‐TradeProgramResolution10‐42.December16,2010.Available:<http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/capandtrade/draft%20resolution.pdf>.Accessed:July12,2013.

CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard.2012.AmbientAirQualityStandards.LastRevised:June7,2012.Available:<http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf>.Accessed:June25,2013.

CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard.2013.AirQualityDataStatistics.Available:<http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php>.Accessed:June25,2013.

CaliforniaDepartmentofConservation.2010.MercedCountyImportantFarmland2010;Sheet1of2.Available:<ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/fmmp/2010/merced2010.shp>.Accessed:July10,2013.

CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife.2013.CaliforniaNaturalDiversityDatabase,RareFind4.TurlockandeightsurroundingU.S.GeologicalSurvey7.5‐minutequadrangles.Available:<http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp>.Accessed:June18,2013.

CaliforniaDepartmentofWaterResources.2004.California’sGroundwaterBulletin,Bulletin118.MercedSubbasin.Available:<http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/basindescriptions/5‐22.04.pdf>.Accessed:October18,2011.

Merced County References Cited

July 2013ICF 00237.13

CaliforniaNativePlantSociety.2013.InventoryofRareandEndangeredPlants(onlineedition,v7‐12feb).Lastrevised:June13,2013.Available:<http://cnps.site.aplus.net/cgi‐bin/inv/inventory.cgi>.Accessed:June18,2013.

CenterforClimateandEnergySolutions.2012.TheGreenhouseEffect.Available:<http://www.c2es.org/facts‐figures/basics/greenhouse‐effect>.Accessed:July12,2013.

Clinkenbeard,J.P.1999.MineralLandClassificationofMercedCounty,California.CaliforniaDepartmentofConservation,DivisionofMinesandGeology.(OFR99‐08.)63pp.

FederalEmergencyManagementAgency.2008.FloodInsuranceRateMap(FIRM).Available:http://map1.msc.fema.gov/idms/IntraView.cgi?ROT=0&O_X=7200&O_Y=5754&O_ZM=0.077324&O_SX=1113&O_SY=710&O_DPI=400&O_TH=54340598&O_EN=54346161&O_PG=1&O_MP=1&CT=0&DI=0&WD=14400&HT=10346&JX=1592&JY=770&MPT=0&MPS=0&ACT=0&KEY=54340198&ITEM=1&PICK_VIEW_CENTER.x=578&PICK_VIEW_CENTER.y=660&R1=VIN.Accessed:10‐18‐2011.

ICFInternational.2011.InitialStudy/MitigatedNegativeDeclarationfortheE.&J.GalloLivingstonWineryEastsideExpansionProject.November2011.

IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange1996.1995:ScienceofClimateChange.(SecondAssessmentReport).Cambridge,U.K.:CambridgeUniversityPress.

IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange.2001.AtmosphericChemistryandGreenhouseGases.InClimateChange2001:WorkingGroupI:TheScientificBasis.Available:<http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/TAR‐04.PDF>.Accessed:July12,2013.

IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange.2007a.Introduction.InB.Metz,O.R.Davidson,P.R.Bosch,R.Dave,L.A.Meyer,(eds.),ContributionofWorkingGroupIIItotheFourthAssessmentReportoftheIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange,2007.Cambridge,U.K.andNewYork,NY,USA:CambridgeUniversityPress.Available:<http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment‐report/ar4/wg3/ar4‐wg3‐chapter1.pdf>.Accessed:July12,2013.

IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange2007b.ClimateChange2007:ThePhysicalScienceBasis.ContributionofWorkingGroupItotheFourthAssessmentReportoftheIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange.Solomon,S.,D.Qin,M.Manning,Z.Chen,M.Marquis,K.B.Averyt,M.TignorandH.L.Miller(eds.).Available:<http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4‐wg1.htm>.Accessed:July12,2013.

KjeldsenBiologicalConsulting.2011.BiologicalAssessmentfortheLivingstonWineryProposedExpansion,18000W.RiverRoad,LivingstonCA.APN#047‐130‐034(and030).August.

MercedCountyLocalAgencyFormationCommission.2007.WaterandSewerServiceProvidersMunicipalServiceReview.CountyofMerced.FinalReport.PreparedbyEconomic&PlanningSystems,Inc.ApprovedbyLAFCOMay24.Available:<http://www.lafcomerced.org/pages/pdfs/MSR/urban_sewer_and_water_district_final_msr_report.pdf>Accessed:October12,2011.

MercedCounty.1990.Year2000GeneralPlan.Safety.AdoptedDecember4,1990.Available:<http://www.co.merced.ca.us/documents/Planning_and_Community_Development/General_Plan/Complete%20Document.PDF>.Accessed:June25,2013.

Merced County References Cited

July 2013ICF 00237.13

NationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration.2010.GreenhouseGases:FrequentlyAskedQuestions.Available:<http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html>.Accessed:July12,2013.

SanJoaquinValleyAirPollutionControlDistrict.2002.GuideforAssessingandMitigatingAirQualityImpacts.MobileSource/CEQAPage22‐26.SectionofthePlanningDivisionoftheSanJoaquinValleyUnifiedAirPollutionControlDistrict.Fresno,CA.January2002.

SanJoaquinValleyAirPollutionControlDistrict.2009.GuidanceforValleyLand‐UseAgenciesinAddressingGHGEmissionsImpactsforNewProjectsUnderCEQA.December17,2009.Available:<http://www.valleyair.org/programs/CCAP/12‐17‐09/3%20CCAP%20‐%20FINAL%20LU%20Guidance%20‐%20Dec%2017%202009.pdf>.Accessed:July12,2013.

SanJoaquinValleyAirPollutionControlDistrict.2011.InitialStudy/MitigatedNegativeDeclaration–E.&J.GalloLivingstonWineryEastsideExpansion.December1,2011.LetterfromDavidWarner,DirectorofPermitServicesatSJVAPCD,toJamesHolland,CountyofMerced.

StateWaterResourcesControlBoard.2010.CWASection303(d)ListofWaterQualityLimitedSegments,CentralValleyRegion.Available:http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/Vtmdl/docs/303dlists2006/epa/r5_06_303d_reqtmdls.pdf.Accessed:July10,2013.

TomOriger&Associates.2011.ACulturalResourcesSurveyfortheGalloWineryExpansionProject,18000RiverRoad,Livingston,MercedCounty,California,July22.PreparedbyEileenBarrow,SantaRosa,CA.PreparedforKjeldsenBiologicalConsulting,SantaRosa,CA.

U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.2012.GreenbookforNonattainmentPollutants.LastRevised:December14,2012.Available:<http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/>.Accessed:June25,2013.

U.S.FishandWildlifeService.2013.ListofEndangeredandThreatenedSpeciesthatMayOccurintheTurlockUSGS7.5‐MinuteQuadrangle.Lastrevised:September18,2011.Available:<http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/ES_Species/Lists/es_species_lists‐form.cfm>.Accessed:June18,2013.

Personal Communications Rubins,Demae.ProjectManager,SummitEngineering.EmailtoSallyZeff,ICFInternational.July9,

Siong,Patia.AirQualityPlanner,SanJoaquinValleyUnifiedAirPollutionControlDistrict.May23,2011—emailtoShannonHatcher,ICF,regardingconstructionthresholds.

Appendix A Bauer and Associates Geotechnical Consultation

Appendix B Biological Resources Field Report

Memorandum

Date: July24,2013

To: JamesHollandMercedCounty2222MStreetMerced,CA95340

From: AngelaAlcalaSeniorBiologist

Subject: Biological Survey Results for the E & J Gallo Winery Eastside Use Permit Major Modification No. MM13‐009

ThismemorandumsummarizestheresultsofaJune18,2013biologicalresourcessurveyofthe2‐acreparcellocatedeastoftheexistingGalloLivingstonWinerythatwillaccommodatetheexpansionoftheprocessingfacility.

Project Location and Description TheE.&J.GalloLivingstonWineryislocatedinMercedCountyapproximately4.5milessouthwestoftheCityofLivingston(Figure1).Theexistingareaofactivewineryoperationsisapproximately81acres.Itislocatedapproximately8mileswestofStateRoute(SR)99andisaccessedfromRiverRoad,whichbordersthewineryonthesouthandeast.Theproposedprojectareaisa2‐acreparcellocatedimmediatelyeastoftheexistingfacility(Figure1).Theadditional2acresarelocatedinafallowareaontheeastperimeterofthepreviouslyapprovedprojectsite,nearRiverRoad.

Theproposedmodificationinvolvesanadditional2‐acreareaforcooperagetankstosupportthepreviouslyapprovedLivingstonEastsideExpansion.Theproposedmodificationdoesnotchangetheproductioncapacityofthefacility.Itallowsforlongeronsitestoragetoaccommodatetheongoingshifttohigher‐qualitywinesmadeatthefacility.Approximately50dual‐purposecooperagetanks,withthecapabilitytobothfermentwhitegrapejuiceduringharvestandserveaswinestorageduringtheoff‐season,wouldbeinstalledwithinthis2‐acrearea.Thenewtankswillbeapproximately45feettallandlooksimilartotheexistingtanks.

Biological Survey Results for the E & J Gallo Winery Eastside Use Permit Major Modification No. MM13‐009 July 24, 2013 Page 2 of 3

Prefield Review Priortoconductingthefieldsurvey,ICFreviewedthefollowingsourcesofinformationtoidentifysensitivehabitatsandspecial‐statusplantandanimalspeciesthatareknowntooccurorwithpotentialtooccuronthe2‐acreexpansionarea.

ArecordssearchoftheCaliforniaNaturalDiversityDatabasefortheTurlockandeightsurroundingU.S.GeologicalSurvey(USGS)7.5‐minutequadrangles(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2013).

AsearchoftheCaliforniaNativePlantSociety’s(CNPS)onlineInventoryofRareandEndangeredPlants(CaliforniaNativePlantSociety2013).

TheU.S.FishandWildlifeService(USFWS)listofendangered,threatened,andcandidatespeciesfortheTurlockUSGS7.5‐minutequadrangle(U.S.FishandWildlifeService2013).

BiologicalAssessmentfortheLivingstonWineryProposedExpansionProject(KjeldsonBiologicalConsulting,August2011)

Aerialphotosofthe2‐acreexpansionareaandsurroundingareas.

Survey Methods Areconnaissance‐levelfieldsurveywasconductedbyICFbiologistAngelaAlcalaonJune18,2013.Ms.AlcalawasaccompaniedbyICFArchaeologistShahiraAshkarandE&JGalloWineryPrincipalEngineerKeithBader.Existingsiteconditionswereusedtoidentifyhabitatthatcouldpotentiallysupportspecial‐statusspecies.Notreeswerepresentonthe2acresitesonearbytreeswerescannedwithbinocularstolookforoccupiedraptornestsorraptoractivity.Aerialphotoswerereviewedtoassessthehabitatsurroundingthesiteandthepotentialforwildlifecorridorsfromadjoiningpropertiesontoorthroughthesite.PresenceofwetlandswasdeterminedusingtheU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers’identificationmethods.

Survey Results The2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsiteiswithinanagriculturalfieldthatwasfallowatthetimeoftheJune18,2013sitevisitbuthashistoricallybeenusedforgrowingrowcropsandvineyard.Thesubstratehasahighsandcontentandvegetationcoverwithinthisareawasmoderate(approximately50%)anddominatedbyweedyplantspecies,predominantlyamaranth(Amaranthussp.).SurroundinglandusesincludetheexistingGallofacilityandparkingareatothewestandnorth,andvineyard,rowcrops,andfallowagriculturalfieldstothesouthandeast.

Biological Survey Results for the E & J Gallo Winery Eastside Use Permit Major Modification No. MM13‐009 July 24, 2013 Page 3 of 3

Nospecial‐statusspeciesorsensitiveresourceshavebeenpreviouslydocumentedonthe2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsite.Neitherthe2acresnortheimmediatesurroundingscontainriparian,seasonalwetland,orvernalpoolhabitat.ThenearestaquaticresourceistheMercedRiver,locatedapproximately0.5miletothenorth.

TheJune18,2013fieldsurveydidnotlocateanyspecial‐statusspecies,includingactivebirdorraptornests,onthe2acresproposedtobeaddedtotheprojectsite.However,aSwainson’shawk(statethreatenedspecies)wasobservedsoaringoverandforagingadjacenttothesite.Numeroussmallmammalburrows(primarilygopherandmice/vole)wereobservedthroughoutthe2‐acresandraptorspecies,includingSwainson’shawk,arelikelytoforageonthesite.TheclosestpotentialnesttreesforSwainson’shawkarelocatedmorethan0.25miletotheeast.The2‐acreareadoesprovidenestingopportunitiesforgroundnestingmigratorybirdsincludingkilldeer,mourningdove,westernmeadowlark,amongothers.

Recommendations Preconstructionground‐nestingbirdsurveysarerecommendedpriortogrounddisturbance(includingstagingandinitialsitegrading)thatoccursduringthebreedingseason(generallyMarch1toAugust31)toavoidviolationoftheMigratoryBirdTreatyActandCaliforniaFishandGameCode.AlthoughnoimpactstoSwainson’shawknestsareanticipatedsincetheclosestpotentialnestsitesaremorethan0.25milefromthe2‐acreexpansionarea,removalofforaginghabitatcouldaffectthelocalpopulationduetocumulativehabitatlossintheregionandlimitedavailabilityofforaginghabitatintheareasurroundingtheprojectsite.CompensatorymitigationforthelossofSwainson’shawkforaginghabitatisrecommended.

K I N G S

C O U N T Y

STANISLAUS

COUNTY

SAN JOAQUIN

COUNTY

MERCED

COUNTY

Fresno

San Francisco

Monterey

San José

Sacramento

Marysville

Stockton

Vacaville

ChicoOrland

Merced

Woodland

Auburn

Modesto

Turlock

Livingston

River Rd

Gri�

Oak St

Gri�

River Rd

Merced River

0 1,000 2,000

3,000 4,000

Project Location

Expansion Site

NOT TO SCALE

Appendix C Cultural Resources Field Report

Memorandum

Date: July24,2013

To: JamesHollandMercedCounty2222MStreetMerced,CA95340

From: ShahiraAshkar,MA,RPAArchaeologist

Subject: Archaeological Inventory for the Gallo Livingston Winery Eastside Expansion

Thismemorandumdocumentsthepedestrianinventoryofthe2‐acreparcellocatedeastoftheGalloLivingstonWinerythatwillaccommodatetheexpansionoftheprocessingfacility.

Project Location and Description TheE.&J.GalloLivingstonWineryislocatedinMercedCountyapproximately4.5milessouthwestoftheCityofLivingston(Figure1).Theexistingareaofactivewineryoperationsisapproximately81acres.Itislocatedapproximately8mileswestofStateRoute(SR)99andisaccessedfromRiverRoad,whichbordersthewineryonthesouthandeast.Theproposedprojectareaisa2‐acreparcellocatedimmediatelyeastoftheexistingfacility(Figure1).

Theproposedmodificationinvolvesanadditional2‐acreareaforcooperagetankstosupportthepreviouslyapprovedLivingstonEastsideExpansion.Theproposedmodificationdoesnotchangetheproductioncapacityofthefacility.Itallowsforlongeronsitestoragetoaccommodatetheongoingshifttohigher‐qualitywinesmadeatthefacility.Approximately50dual‐purposecooperagetanks,withthecapabilitytobothfermentwhitegrapejuiceduringharvestandserveaswinestorageduringtheoff‐season,wouldbeinstalledwithinthis2‐acrearea.Thenewtankswillbeapproximately45feettallandlooksimilartotheexistingtanks.

Theadditional2acresarelocatedinafallowareaontheeastperimeteroftheapprovedprojectsite,nearRiverRoad.

Archaeological Inventory, Gallo Livingston July 24, 2013 Page 2 of 3

Construction Equipment and Staging

Typicalconstructionequipmentthatwouldbeusedincludesthefollowing.

Backhoe

Compactor

ConcreteMixerTruck

ConcretePumpTruck

DumpTruck,Standard

EmployeeVehicle

Generators

HydraulicExcavator,Small

MotorGrader

FlatbedTruck

TractorTrailer

SkidSteerLoader

Telehandler

Trencher,Chain

VibratoryCompactor

WaterTruck

WheeledDozer

WheeledScraper

TruckCrane

BoxTruck

Prefield Research ICFcontactedtheNativeAmericanHeritageCommissiononMay30,2013witharequestforasearchoftheirsacredlandsdatabaseandalistoflocalNativeAmericancontacts.TheNAHCrespondedonJune24,2013indicatingthatthesearchofthesacredlandsdatabasewasnegative.LettersweresenttotheNativeAmericancontactsonJune25,2013.Noresponsehasbeenreceivedtodate.ICFsentarecordssearchrequesttotheCentralCaliforniaInformationCenter(CCIC)onJune2,2013.CCICrespondedonJune20,2013indicatingthatnopreviouslyrecordedsitesorpreviousstudiesarelocatedwithintheGalloLivingstonWineryEastsideExpansionstudyarea.

Pedestrian Inventory ICFarchaeologist,ShahiraAshkarconductedapedestrianinventoryofthe2‐acreparcelonJune18,2013.Theparcelisprimarilywithinanagriculturalfieldthatwasfallowatthetimeofthepedestriansurvey.Thefieldhashistoricallybeenusedforgrowingrowcropsandgrapes.Thewesternmostsegmentoftheparcelislocatedbehindafenceandisagradeddirtroad.

Thedirtroadwasnotsubjecttosurvey,buttheremainderoftheparcelwasexaminedusingsystematicnorth‐southtransectsspacesapproximately10metersapart.Areasofrodentdisturbancewerecloselyexaminedforevidenceofburiedmaterials.Groundsurfacevisibilitywas

Archaeological Inventory, Gallo Livingston July 24, 2013 Page 3 of 3

good,rangingfrom75to90percent.Theareahasbeenheavilydisturbedbyagriculturalactivitiesovertheyears,thoughitisnowpartiallycoveredwithvegetation.Noculturalresourceswerelocatedasaresultofthissurvey.

Recommendations Thoughnoculturalresourceswerelocatedintheareaasaresultoftheprefieldresearchorthepedestrianinventory,itisalwayspossiblethatburiedculturalresourcesarepresentwithintheprojectarea.ShouldtheseresourcesbesignificantasdefinedinSection15064.6,disturbanceordestructionofthemwouldbeasignificantimpact.Therefore,itisrecommendedthatshouldanyculturalresourcesbelocatedduringconstruction,aqualifiedarchaeologistbecontactedtoassessthefindandrecommendfurtheractionifnecessary.

K I N G S

C O U N T Y

STANISLAUS

COUNTY

SAN JOAQUIN

COUNTY

MERCED

COUNTY

Fresno

San Francisco

Monterey

San José

Sacramento

Marysville

Stockton

Vacaville

ChicoOrland

Merced

Woodland

Auburn

Modesto

Turlock

Livingston

River Rd

Gri�

Oak St

Gri�

River Rd

Merced River

0 1,000 2,000

3,000 4,000

Project Location

Expansion Site

NOT TO SCALE

SUBSEQUENT INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION...

Documents

Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration for the ...plandesignbuild.ucsd.edu/_files/planning/review/voigt-parking... · 'JOBM Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION And RESPONSE TO …

Draft INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION · Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ... Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ... and a chemical

Mitigated Negative Declaration Siskiyou Telephone Company

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PACIFIC …

DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments · (a.03-12-039) mitigated negative declaration rtc table of contents mitigated negative declaration response to comments for pacific

Final Mitigated Negative Declaration and Supporting ... › environment › info › aspen › riverwaysub › mnd › cover.pdfFinal Mitigated Negative Declaration and Supporting

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Mitigated Negative Declaration - sfmea.sfplanning.orgsfmea.sfplanning.org/2013.1407E_FMND.pdf · Mitigated Negative Declaration ... required for alteration of a non‐conforming use

Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration MacArthur Pump

Initial Study / Final Mitigated Negative Declaration

Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration

MITIGATED EGATIVE DECLARATION - San Diego

Final Mitigated Negative Declaration and Supporting

Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration

ADDENDUM-TO A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

DEL MONTE WAREHOUSE PROJECT - WordPress.com€¦ · 11.03.2014 · DEL MONTE WAREHOUSE PROJECT Initial Study / Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for April 2014 City