Environmental 

Assessment Addressing 

the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, 

California

December 2020
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Assessment Addressing 

the Master Plan Update 

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California 

Prepared for:

Defense Distribution Depot

25600 S. Chrisman Road 

Tracy, CA 95304

HQ AFCEC/CFSD

2261 Hughes Avenue, Suite 163

JBSA Lackland, TX 78236

Prepared by:

HDR 

2650 Park Tower Drive

Vienna, VA 22180-7342

December 2020
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ADDRESSING THE MASTER PLAN UPDATE FOR

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN, CALIFORNIA

Responsible Agency: Defense Logistics Agency (DLA).

Affected Location: Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California. 

Report Designation: Environmental Assessment.

Abstract: To provide direction for future development of Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, 

DLA has prepared the 2020 Master Plan. The Master Plan is an update to the installation’s 2013 

Real Property Master Plan. It includes a Future Development Plan, which is the implementation tool 

for the Master Plan and considers the condition of the facilities, land uses, environmental and 

operational constraints, sustainability practices, prioritization guidelines, and cost and efficiency 

strategies to identify potential projects that would enable the installation to meet its current and 

future mission requirements during the next 20 years. The Master Plan includes four component 

plans, which are the 2013 Net-Zero Energy Study, 2013 Sustainability Plan, 2018 Integrated Pest 

Management Plan (IPMP), and 2018 Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP). The 

Net-Zero Energy Study balances the installation’s future energy demand from buildings, industrial 

processes, fleet vehicles, and equipment with renewable energy production. The Sustainability Plan

provides a pathway for the installation to move toward compliance with relevant federal mandates 

regarding sustainability. The IPMP is the installation’s plan for its pest management program. The 

INRMP is the installation’s plan for managing its natural resources while ensuring the success of the 

military mission. 

This Environmental Assessment analyzes the potential for significant environmental impacts 

associated with the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative. The Proposed Action is 

implementation of the Master Plan, IPMP, and INRMP. The Proposed Action does not include 

implementation of the Net-Zero Energy Study and Sustainability Plan because these documents

have not been updated since 2013 and their implementation was analyzed for potentially significant 

environmental impacts in the Environmental Assessment for the 2013 Real Property Master Plan, 

which resulted in a Finding of No Significant Impact. Under the Proposed Action, DLA would 

implement the projects of the Future Development Plan, IPMP, and INRMP to replace undersized, 

outdated buildings and infrastructure with appropriately-sized, modern, energy-efficient, sustainable 

buildings and infrastructure; relocate functions and renovate buildings to improve facility sitings with 

respect to applicable planning constraints; reduce non-renewable energy and fossil fuel use; reduce 

reliance on pesticides; and continue conservation and enhancement of existing ecosystems on the 

installation. Under the No Action Alternative, DLA would not implement the Master Plan, IPMP, or 

INRMP. Instead, DLA would continue to use and maintain existing outdated, undersized, and 

inefficient buildings and infrastructure and would not implement the projects in these plans. 

Implementation of the No Action Alternative may hinder the installation’s ability to meet its current 

and future mission requirements. 

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to enable orderly and comprehensive installation 

development in a manner that is sustainable, meets current mission requirements, and is flexible 

enough to meet future mission changes. The Proposed Action is needed to ensure the installation is 

able to meet its current and future mission requirements efficiently and effectively while ensuring its

sustainability, protecting its natural resources, and improving safety. The No Action Alternative would 

not meet the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action.
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

No significant effects on environmental resources would occur from the Proposed Action. 

Insignificant, adverse effects on noise, air quality, geological resources, water resources, biological 

resources, infrastructure and transportation, and hazardous materials and wastes would occur. 

However, insignificant, beneficial effects on land use and recreation, noise, air quality, geological 

resources, water resources, biological resources, infrastructure and transportation, and hazardous 

materials and wastes also would occur.
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

December 2020 | i

Contents 

Abstract 

List of Acronyms.....................................................................................................................................iii

1 Proposed Action Purpose and Need......................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action................................................................ 1-3

1.3 Scope of the Environmental Assessment........................................................................ 1-3

1.4 Summary of Key Environmental Compliance Requirements .......................................... 1-3

1.4.1 National Environmental Policy Act ...................................................................... 1-3

1.4.2 Applicable Environmental and Regulatory Compliance...................................... 1-3

1.5 Agency Coordination and Public Involvement................................................................. 1-4

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Description.......................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Proposed Action............................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.1 Master Plan.......................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.2 Integrated Pest Management Plan...................................................................... 2-8

2.1.3 Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan............................................... 2-8

2.2 No Action Alternative ....................................................................................................... 2-9

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ..................................... 2-9

3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences........................................................ 3-1

3.1 Land Use and Recreation ................................................................................................ 3-2

3.1.1 Existing Conditions .............................................................................................. 3-2

3.1.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................ 3-3

3.2 Noise ................................................................................................................................ 3-5

3.2.1 Existing Conditions .............................................................................................. 3-5

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................ 3-6

3.3 Air Quality......................................................................................................................... 3-6

3.3.1 Existing Conditions .............................................................................................. 3-6

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................ 3-7

3.4 Geological Resources...................................................................................................... 3-8

3.4.1 Existing Conditions .............................................................................................. 3-8

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences .......................................................................... 3-10

3.5 Water Resources ........................................................................................................... 3-11

3.5.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................ 3-11

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences .......................................................................... 3-12

3.6 Biological Resources ..................................................................................................... 3-12

3.6.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................ 3-12

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences .......................................................................... 3-14

3.7 Infrastructure and Transportation .................................................................................. 3-16

3.7.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................ 3-16

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences .......................................................................... 3-18

3.8 Hazardous Materials and Wastes.................................................................................. 3-21

3.8.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................ 3-21
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

ii | December 2020

3.8.2 Environmental Consequences .......................................................................... 3-23

4 Cumulative and Other Effects.................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Cumulative Effects ........................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Unavoidable Adverse Effects........................................................................................... 4-2

4.3 Compatibility of the Proposed Action and Alternatives with the Objectives of 

Federal, Regional, State, and Local Land Use Plans, Policies, and Controls ................ 4-3

4.4 Relationship Between Short-term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance and 

Enhancement of Long-term Productivity ......................................................................... 4-3

4.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resource.................................................. 4-3

4.6 Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential ......................................................... 4-3

4.7 Natural or Depletable Resource Requirements and Conservation Potential.................. 4-4

5 Summary of Potential Environmental Effects............................................................................ 5-1

6 References................................................................................................................................. 6-1

7 Preparers ................................................................................................................................... 7-1

Tables

Table 2-1. Projects of COA 1: Warehouse Optimization................................................................. 2-2

Table 2-2. Projects of COA 2: Warehouse Expansion .................................................................... 2-4

Table 2-3. Projects of COA 3: Warehouse MILCON ....................................................................... 2-6

Table 5-1. Potential Effects of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative.............................. 5-1

Table A-1. Integrated Pest Management Plan Projects.................................................................. A-1

Table A-2. Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan Projects........................................... A-2

Table B-1. Summary of Environmental Contamination Sites on Defense Distribution Depot, 

San Joaquin................................................................................................................... B-1

Figures 

Figure 1-1. Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin and Vicinity................................................... 1-2

Figure 2-1. Locations of COA 1 Projects .......................................................................................... 2-3

Figure 2-2. Locations of COA 2 Projects .......................................................................................... 2-5

Figure 2-3. Locations of COA 3 Projects .......................................................................................... 2-7

Figure 3-1. Planning Districts of Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin..................................... 3-4

Figure 3-2. Environmental Contamination Sites and Groundwater Plumes on Defense 

Distribution Depot, San Joaquin................................................................................... 3-22

Appendices 

Appendix A. Integrated Pest Management Plan and Integrated Natural Resources Management 

Plan Projects 

Appendix B. Summary of Environmental Contamination Sites
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

December 2020 | iii

List of Acronyms

ACM asbestos-containing material

ACP access control point

BMP best management practice

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

COA Course of Action

DLA Defense Logistics Agency

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EISA Energy Independence and Security Act

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FY fiscal year

INRMP Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

IPMP Integrated Pest Management Plan

LBP lead-based paint

LID low-impact development

LUC land use control

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MILCON Military Construction

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NZES Net-Zero Energy Study

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl

PM10 particulate matter, measured as equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter

PM2.5 particulate matter, measured as equal to or less than 2.5 microns in diameter

SP Sustainability Plan

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

iv | December 2020

This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

December 2020 | 1-1

1 Proposed Action Purpose and Need

1.1 Introduction 

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin is a Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) installation in Tracy, 

California, approximately 20 miles south of Stockton. It consists of approximately 908 acres on two 

sites: the Tracy Site and the Tracy Annex. The Tracy Site is 448 acres with 12 improved open 

storage lots and 62 buildings that include warehouses, administrative, support areas, and installation 

maintenance. The Tracy Annex is 460 acres of agricultural land to the north of the Tracy Site (DLA 

2020). Figure 1-1 shows the Tracy Site and Tracy Annex. The U.S. Army owns the land and all real 

property assets on the installation.

To provide direction for future development of Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, DLA has 

prepared the 2020 Master Plan. The Master Plan is an update to the installation’s 2013 Real 

Property Master Plan. It includes a Future Development Plan, which is the implementation tool for 

the Master Plan and considers the condition of the facilities, land uses, environmental and 

operational constraints, sustainability practices, prioritization guidelines, and cost and efficiency 

strategies to identify potential projects that would enable the installation to meet its current and 

future mission requirements during the next 20 years. The Master Plan includes four component 

plans, which are the 2013 Net-Zero Energy Study (NZES), 2013 Sustainability Plan (SP), 2018 

Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPMP), and 2018 Integrated Natural Resources Management 

Plan (INRMP). The NZES balances the installation’s future energy demand from buildings, industrial 

processes, fleet vehicles, and equipment with renewable energy production. The SP provides a 

pathway for the installation to move toward compliance with relevant federal mandates regarding 

sustainability. The IPMP is the installation’s plan for its pest management program. The INRMP is 

the installation’s plan for managing its natural resources while ensuring the success of the military 

mission. Section 2.1 further describes the Master Plan and those component plans that are 

analyzed in this Environmental Assessment (EA). 

This EA analyzes the potential for significant environmental impacts associated with the Proposed 

Action and alternatives, including the No Action Alternative. The Proposed Action is implementation 

of the Master Plan, IPMP, and INRMP. The Proposed Action does not include implementation of the 

NZES and SP because these documents have not been updated since 2013 and their 

implementation was analyzed for potentially significant environmental impacts in the EA for the 2013 

Real Property Master Plan, which resulted in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). 

This EA has been prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (Title 40 Code of Federal

Regulations §§ 1500–1508); DLA Regulation 1000.22, Environmental Considerations in Defense 

Logistics Agency Actions; and other applicable DLA issuances (e.g., regulations, directives, 

memorandums, instructions). Because the Proposed Action would occur entirely on the installation, 

which is federally owned property, there is no applicability driver for the California Environmental 

Quality Act, and this EA has not been prepared in compliance with such act.
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

1-2 | December 2020

Figure 1-1. Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin and Vicinity
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

December 2020 | 1-3

1.2 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to enable orderly and comprehensive installation 

development in a manner that is sustainable, meets current mission requirements, and is flexible 

enough to meet future mission changes. The Proposed Action is needed to ensure the installation is 

able to meet its current and future mission requirements efficiently and effectively while ensuring its 

sustainability, protecting its natural resources, and improving safety.

1.3 Scope of the Environmental Assessment

The scope of this EA includes the actions proposed, alternatives considered, existing environment, 

and potential for direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. The Proposed Action and alternatives 

considered in this EA are presented in Section 2. The No Action Alternative has been analyzed to 

provide a baseline against which the potential environmental impacts of implementing the Proposed 

Action can be compared. 

This EA analyzes the potential impacts of implementing the Master Plan, IPMP, and INRMP. The 

Master Plan and its component plans guide the siting, design, and timing of future projects to meet 

current and future mission requirements and ensure development is conducted in a sustainable and 

environmentally conscious manner. Potential environmental impacts from construction, demolition, 

and operation of the analyzed projects will be addressed in separate NEPA documentation (e.g., 

categorical exclusions) when these projects are further defined and ready for NEPA analysis.

1.4 Summary of Key Environmental Compliance 

Requirements 

1.4.1 National Environmental Policy Act

NEPA, codified in 42 United States Code § 4321 et seq., was signed into law on January 1, 1970. 

The Act established a national environmental policy and goals for the protection, maintenance, and 

enhancement of the environment and provides a process for implementing these goals within federal 

agencies. The Act also established the CEQ to coordinate federal environmental efforts. The 

process for implementing NEPA is outlined in 40 Code of Federal Regulations §§ 1500–1508. CEQ 

regulations specify that an EA serves to briefly provide evidence and analysis for determining 

whether to prepare a FONSI or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). As part of the EA 

process, DLA will determine whether the Proposed Action would have the potential to result in 

significant impacts. If the EA identifies potential significant impacts, DLA would decide whether to 

mitigate impacts below the level of significance, undertake preparation of an EIS, or select the No 

Action Alternative.

1.4.2 Applicable Environmental and Regulatory Compliance

The NEPA process does not replace procedural or substantive requirements of other environmental 

statutes and regulations. It addresses them collectively in the form of an EA or EIS, which enables 

the decision maker to have a comprehensive view of major environmental issues and requirements 

associated with the Proposed Action.
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

1-4 | December 2020

1.5 Agency Coordination and Public Involvement

DLA Regulation 1000.22 requires DLA to facilitate coordination with federal, state, and local officials 

and organizations that could be affected by a proposed action. DLA invites agencies, tribes, and 

members of the public with an interest in the Proposed Action and alternatives to participate in this 

NEPA process, which provides DLA with the opportunity to coordinate with and consider the views of 

other agencies, tribes, and individuals. A premise of NEPA is that the quality of federal decisions is 

enhanced by involving the public in the planning process.

The Proposed Action does not qualify as an undertaking under the National Historic Preservation Act

or an action under the Endangered Species Act because it is limited to the implementation of the

Master Plan, IPMP, and INRMP and considers the location, timing, and design of the projects in 

these plans. As such, consultation with the California State Historical Preservation Officer and Native 

American tribes under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is unnecessary for 

the Proposed Action. Section 106 and Section 7 consultation will be conducted on a project-byproject basis, as needed, when the projects become further defined and ready for consultation. 

DLA will make the EA available for a 30-day public comment period. A notice of availability for the 

EA and public comment period will be published in the Tracy Press, The Stockton Record, and Vida 

en el Valle. Comments received during the public comment period will be considered during 

preparation of the final version of the EA.
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

December 2020 | 2-1

2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Description

2.1 Proposed Action

The Proposed Action is implementation of the Master Plan, IPMP, and INRMP. The Proposed Action 

does not include implementation of the NZES and SP because these documents have not been 

updated since 2013 and their implementation was analyzed for potentially significant environmental 

impacts in the EA for the 2013 Real Property Master Plan, which resulted in a FONSI. 

2.1.1 Master Plan

The Master Plan provides direction for the future development of the installation over the next 

20 years and identifies potential projects that would ensure the installation is able to meet its current 

and future mission requirements efficiently and effectively while ensuring its sustainability, protecting 

its natural resources, and improving safety. It includes a Sustainability Planning Framework, Capital 

Investment Strategy, and Future Development Plan, each of which is described below (DLA 2020). 

Sustainability Planning Framework. The Sustainability Planning Framework is an 11-step process 

that considers the critical functions of the installation, sustainable practices, and areas suitable for 

renewable energy projects. 

Capital Investment Strategy. The Capital Investment Strategy establishes the priorities for 

investing in the facilities development projects. It prioritizes needs to use time- and cost-effective 

means. 

Future Development Plan. The Future Development Plan is the implementation tool for the Master 

Plan and identifies potential projects to be completed within the next 20 years. It contains three 

Courses of Action (COAs) that address Warehouse Optimization, Warehouse Expansion, and 

Warehouse Military Construction (MILCON). These COAs provide a variety of options for the 

installation to address mission requirements during different timeframes and at a variety of cost 

options. The COAs are described as follows: 

• COA 1, Warehouse Optimization. This COA represents actions proposed in a recent 

warehouse optimization study, upgrades to existing warehouses, and projects to meet 

current installation requirements. Table 2-1 describes and Figure 2-1 shows the projects of

COA 1.

• COA 2, Warehouse Expansion. This COA proposes warehouse expansions and connections 

between existing warehouses to establish a Western Distribution Center at the installation. 

Table 2-2 describes and Figure 2-2 shows the projects of COA 2.

• COA 3, Warehouse MILCON. This COA assumes an increase in missions at the installation 

and proposes to establish a Western Distribution Center at a newly constructed facility. 

Several existing warehouses would need to be demolished to make sufficient space 

available for new construction. Table 2-3 describes and Figure 2-3 shows the projects of 

COA 3.
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

2-2 | December 2020

Table 2-1. Projects of COA 1: Warehouse Optimization

Map Key Project Description

Construction Timeframe

1-5 Years 6-10 Years 11+ Years

1 Retrofit Building 32 for a Fitness Center and 

Café



2 Renovate Building 100 Administration 

2 Retrofit Building 100 for Training and Auditorium  

2 Retrofit Building 100 to Expand Child 

Development Center Capacity



3 Pave 50-foot × 50-foot Police Training Area 

4 Repurpose Building 6 for Vehicle Maintenance, 

Equipment Maintenance, Pharmacy, and Wood 

Pallet Recycling



5 Biomass (wood) Power Plant 

6 Microgrid Controls 

7 Installation-wide Emergency Backup Generator 

8 Well 7 Replacement 

9 Banta Road Secondary Emergency Access 

InstallationwideWarehouse Retrofits (Buildings 15, 16A/B, 17, 

20, 22, 29, 30, 56, 57, 58)

  

InstallationwideUtility Scale Solar Photovoltaic Array on top of 

warehouses



InstallationwideMiscellaneous Security Upgrades 

InstallationwideExterior Light-emitting Diode Lighting Upgrades 

InstallationwideBase and Building Signage and Wayfinding 

InstallationwideExpand Docks 
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

December 2020 | 2-3

Figure 2-1. Locations of COA 1 Projects
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

2-4 | December 2020

Table 2-2. Projects of COA 2: Warehouse Expansion

Map Key Project Description

Construction Timeframe

1-5 Years 6-10 Years 11+ Years

1 Expand Buildings 56 and 57; Connect Buildings 

57 and 58; Establish Wood Pallet Recycling

 

2 Construct New Administration and Training 

Building



3 Demolish Building 100  

4 Renovate Building 32 for Installation Restaurant  

5 Repurpose Building 6 for Auditorium, Indoor 

Recreation, Fitness Center, and Child 

Development Center



6 Pave 50-foot × 50-foot Police Training Area 

7 Biomass (wood) Power Plant 

8 Microgrid Controls 

9 Installation-wide Emergency Backup Generator 

10 Well 7 Replacement 

11 Banta Road Secondary Emergency Access 

12 New Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance 

Building



InstallationwideDemolish Buildings 13, 14, 17, and 20 

InstallationwideBase and Building Signage and Wayfinding 

InstallationwideEmergency Backup Generator Circuit 

Connections



InstallationwideMiscellaneous Security Upgrades 

InstallationwideExterior Light-emitting Diode Lighting Upgrades 

InstallationwideUtility Scale Solar Photovoltaic Array on top of 

warehouses and open storage areas



InstallationwideWarehouse Retrofits (Buildings 15, 16A/B, 17, 20, 

29, 30, 57, and 58)

  

InstallationwideExpand Docks 
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

December 2020 | 2-5

Figure 2-2. Locations of COA 2 Projects
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

2-6 | December 2020

Table 2-3. Projects of COA 3: Warehouse MILCON

Map Key Project Description

Construction Timeframe

1-5 Years 6-10 Years 11+ Years

1 Construct Western Distribution Center with wood 

pallet recycling and pharmacy



2 New Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance 

Building



3 Expand Building 32, Child Development Center 

4 Construct New Administration Facility 

5 Demolish Building 100  

6 Construct New Fitness Center 

7 Construct Multipurpose Auditorium and Training 

8 Pave 50-foot × 50-foot Police Training Area 

9 Biomass (wood) Power Plant 

10 Microgrid Controls 

11 Installation-wide Emergency Backup Generator 

12 Well 7 Replacement 

13 Banta Road Secondary Emergency Access 

InstallationwideDemolish Buildings 6, 13, 14, 17, 18, and 20 

InstallationwideBase and Building Signage and Wayfinding 

InstallationwideMiscellaneous Security Upgrades 

InstallationwideExterior Light-emitting Diode Lighting Upgrades 

InstallationwideUtility Scale Solar Photovoltaic Array on ground 

surface at Tracy Annex



InstallationwideWarehouse Retrofits (Buildings 15, 21, 22, 56, 

57, 58)

  

InstallationwideExpand Docks 
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

December 2020 | 2-7

Figure 2-3. Locations of COA 3 Projects
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

2-8 | December 2020

The proposed projects of the three COAs are conceptual in nature; therefore, the scope of analysis 

for these projects in this EA is programmatic and addresses the location, timing, and design of the 

proposed projects. 

The three COAs are not distinct alternatives. The COAs represent general directions that the 

installation could follow to meet potential future mission requirements. The Future Development Plan 

does not identify a preferred COA because it is impossible to predict future available funding, 

evolving mission requirements, political decisions, and Department of Defense and DLA policies for 

the next 20 years. As such, elements of each COA are likely to be implemented. The three COAs 

are addressed collectively as part of the Proposed Action in this EA. 

Each project would be designed to meet necessary security and vehicle standoff requirements 

specified in Unified Facilities Criteria 4-010-01, DoD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings, 

and Unified Facilities Criteria 1-200-02, High Performance and Sustainable Building Requirements. 

They also would meet regional seismic load, sustainable design and development, low-impact 

development, Energy Policy Act of 2005, and Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 

requirements. The projects would be designed to meet applicable Leadership in Energy and 

Environmental Design standards and comply with the Installation Design Guide. All projects would 

be constructed consistent with the Master Plan and its component plans. 

Implementing the projects of the Future Development Plan would result in the replacement of

undersized, outdated buildings and infrastructure with appropriately-sized, modern, energy-efficient, 

sustainable buildings and infrastructure; relocation of functions and renovation of buildings to 

improve facility sitings with respect to applicable planning constraints; and a reduction in nonrenewable energy and fossil fuel use. Construction may increase total impervious surface on the 

installation, but the increase in impervious surface cannot be estimated because the proposed 

projects are conceptual. 

2.1.2 Integrated Pest Management Plan

The IPMP is the installation’s plan for its pest management program. It provides a sustainable 

approach for managing pests by using a combination of biological, cultural, physical, and chemical 

tools. DLA would use these tools in a manner that minimizes economic, health, and environmental 

risks. Nonchemical pest-control efforts are proposed to be used to the maximum extent possible 

prior to the application of pesticides. The IPMP describes methods for detecting, monitoring, and 

controlling specific pests as well as administrative, safety, and environmental requirements (see 

Appendix A). Implementation of the IPMP would reduce reliance on pesticides; enhance 

environmental protection; and help ensure pests don’t interfere with the military mission, lower 

morale, damage real property, increase maintenance costs, or expose personnel to disease (DLA 

2018a).

The IPMP was last updated in October 2018, and implementation of the current version has not yet 

been analyzed for the potential for significant environmental impacts. As such, implementation of the 

IPMP is addressed in this EA.

2.1.3 Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

The INRMP is the installation’s plan for managing its natural resources while ensuring the success of 

the military mission. It uses adaptive management to maintain sustainable land use on the 

installation. The INRMP includes 71 proposed projects in the areas of ecosystem management,
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

December 2020 | 2-9

threatened and endangered species and species of concern, wetlands and waters of the United 

States, watershed management, fish and wildlife management, habitat management, exotic and 

invasive species management, grounds maintenance, agricultural outleasing, outdoor recreation,

and environmental awareness, education and outreach (see Appendix A). These projects are 

designed to ensure minimal impact on the military mission while providing for the management and 

stewardship of natural resources and the conservation and enhancement of existing ecosystems on 

the installation. Implementation of the INRMP supports DLA’s continuing need to ensure the safety 

and efficiency of its mission while practicing sound natural resources stewardship and complying 

with environmental policies and regulations (DLA 2018b).

The INRMP was last updated in June 2018, and implementation of the current version has not yet 

been analyzed for the potential for significant environmental impacts. As such, implementation of the 

INRMP is addressed in this EA.

2.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, DLA would not implement the Master Plan, IPMP, or INRMP. DLA 

would continue to use and maintain existing outdated, undersized, and inefficient buildings and 

infrastructure, and it would not implement the Future Development Plan, pest management, and 

natural resources projects in the Master Plan, IPMP, or INRMP. Implementation of the No Action 

Alternative may hinder the installation’s ability to meet its current and future mission requirements 

and would not meet the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action, as described in Section 1.2. 

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed 

Analysis 

No action alternatives have been identified for implementation of the Proposed Action. As noted in 

Section 2.1.1, the Future Development Plan includes three COAs. These COAs are not distinct 

alternatives. The COAs represent general directions that the installation could follow to meet 

potential future mission requirements. The Future Development Plan does not identify a preferred 

COA because it is impossible to predict future available funding, evolving mission requirements, 

political decisions, and Department of Defense and DLA policies for the next 20 years. As such, 

elements of each COA are likely to be implemented. Consequently, the three COAs are addressed 

collectively as part of the Proposed Action and are not analyzed as separate alternatives in this EA.
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

2-10 | December 2020

This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

December 2020 | 3-1

3 Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences

All environmental resource areas were initially evaluated for potential consequences from 

implementation of the Proposed Action. The initial evaluation determined that some environmental 

resource areas would not be impacted or would have clearly insignificant effects. These 

environmental resource areas are not analyzed in detail in this EA and are described as follows:

Aesthetic and Visual Resources. The Proposed Action would not adversely affect the aesthetics or 

visual appeal of the installation. The proposed facilities would be constructed in appropriate planning 

districts (see Section 3.1.1) and would follow the design guidelines in the Installation Design Guide, 

which would ensure a consistent and coherent architectural character throughout the installation. 

Landscaping would be used to provide an attractive and professional looking installation using 

plants, shrubs, and trees to blend with the surrounding environment. Some of the proposed projects 

(e.g., new construction, building repair, demolition of older buildings) would enhance the existing 

aesthetics. Therefore, long-term, beneficial effects on aesthetics and visual resources would occur

from the Proposed Action, and a detailed aesthetics and visual resources analysis is not included in 

this EA.

Airspace Management and Safety. The Proposed Action would not result in any obstruction to 

airspace or hazards to airspace management. The nearest airport to the installation is the Tracy 

Municipal Airport, which is more than 2 miles from the installation (see Figure 1-1). 

Coastal Zone Management. The Proposed Action would not be sited within a coastal zone nor 

would it impact a coastal zone.

Cultural Resources. The Proposed Action does not qualify as an undertaking under the National 

Historic Preservation Act because it is limited to the implementation of the Master Plan, IPMP, and 

INRMP and considers the location, timing, and design of the projects in these plans. Additionally, 

there are no archaeological or architectural resources at the installation that are listed or eligible for 

listing in the National Register of Historic Places (DLA 2015a). As such, the Proposed Action would 

have no effect on any archaeological or architectural resources listed in or eligible for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places, and consultation with the California State Historical 

Preservation Officer and Native American tribes under Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act is unnecessary for the Proposed Action. Section 106 consultation will be conducted 

on a project-by-project basis, as needed, when the projects become further defined and ready for 

consultation. 

Health and Safety. The Proposed Action would result in negligible beneficial effects on health and 

safety from replacing older infrastructure and incorporation of current design standards and 

antiterrorism/force protection criteria into the proposed structures. Health impacts from human 

exposure to the fungus Coccidioides immitis in soil and the associated Valley Fever respiratory 

infection is discussed in Section 3.4. 

Socioeconomics. The Proposed Action would have no effects on regional demographics and no 

change in the demand for housing. No additional personnel would be employed at the installation to 

support the Proposed Action. Based on the timing of the proposed projects, construction would have 
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

3-2 | December 2020

short-term, direct and indirect, negligible and beneficial effects on employment and the local 

economy through increased employment and the purchase of goods and services. No long-term 

effects on population, employment and economic activity, or demand for public services would occur

from the Proposed Action. Therefore, a detailed socioeconomic analysis of demographics, 

employment and economic activity, and public services is not included in this EA.

Environmental Justice. The Proposed Action does not involve activities that would result in 

disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental impacts on minority, low 

income, or child populations. Impacts from the Proposed Action would be limited to the installation 

and would not affect off-installation communities. Therefore, a detailed environmental justice 

analysis is not included in this EA.

The initial evaluation for potential consequences from the Proposed Action also determined that 

there is the potential for significant effects on other environmental resource areas; therefore, these 

environmental resource areas are analyzed in detail in this EA. The detailed analysis in this EA 

determined that no significant effects from the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative would 

occur. The following sections describe the non-significant effects that would result from the 

Proposed Action.

3.1 Land Use and Recreation

3.1.1 Existing Conditions

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin is in unincorporated San Joaquin County, California, just 

outside the eastern city limits of Tracy, California (see Figure 1-1). The Tracy Site is zoned as Public 

Facilities by San Joaquin County (San Joaquin County 2020). Public Facilities zones are intended to 

provide for the establishment of major correctional, medical, and infrastructure facilities; publicly 

owned recreational facilities and areas; educational facilities; police and fire protection facilities; and 

other support uses likely to benefit the County’s residents (San Joaquin County 2016). The Tracy 

Annex is zoned as General Agriculture by San Joaquin County (San Joaquin County 2020). General 

Agriculture zones are established to preserve agricultural lands for the continuation of commercial 

agriculture enterprises (San Joaquin County 2016). The Tracy Annex currently is leased for 

agricultural purposes (e.g., agricultural row crops and orchard operations) (DLA 2020). 

Surrounding communities include the City of Tracy and unincorporated areas of San Joaquin 

County. Residential land uses, including those within the City of Tracy and rural unincorporated San 

Joaquin County, are adjacent to the west and southwest of the installation. The remaining properties 

adjacent to the installation are within unincorporated San Joaquin County and are designated as 

agricultural except for a small area of industrial land use east of the Tracy Site (San Joaquin County 

2017). The Union Pacific Railroad marks the southeastern boundary of the Tracy Site, and the Tracy 

Site and Tracy Annex are separated from one another by the California Northern Railroad. 

The installation is divided into four planning districts. These planning districts were established to 

guide future development on the installation and minimize incompatible siting of facilities with 

respect to the installation’s five land use categories. The planning districts are shown in Figure 3-1

and are described as follows:
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

December 2020 | 3-3

• Agricultural District. The Agricultural District encompasses the entire Tracy Annex and does 

not include the Tracy Site. This planning district corresponds with the Agricultural land use 

category where land is devoted to agriculture and crop production. 

• Community/Administration District. The Community/Administration District is in the northwest 

corner of the Tracy Site and is comprised of the Community and Administrative land use 

categories. The Community land use category serves family support, personnel services, 

medical, religious, commercial, housing, and recreation purposes. Community facilities 

include the fitness center at Building 103, a running track, and an outdoor basketball court.

The Administrative land use category serves general purpose offices, professional services, 

community services, and technical support facilities. Most administrative facilities are in

Building 100. 

• Utility District. The Utility District is immediately east of the Community/Administration District 

in the northwest corner of the Tracy Site and contains public works-related buildings, the 

wastewater treatment plant, and the stormwater holding reservoir. This planning district 

corresponds with the Installation Maintenance and Support land use category where 

maintenance, fire, safety, and utility operations occur.

• Warehouse District. The Warehouse District encompasses the lower and eastern portions of 

the Tracy Site and includes warehouses and open storage areas. This planning district 

corresponds with the Industrial land use category where warehousing, transportation, and 

light industrial activities are allowed and represents approximately 75 percent of the Tracy 

Site. The Child Development Center and a fitness center are within the Warehousing District 

at Building 32 and Warehouse 18, respectively. These two facilities represent incompatible 

land use sitings (DLA 2020). 

Land use controls (LUCs) have been implemented on portions of the installation to protect human 

health and the environment from soil and groundwater contamination caused by past activities. The

LUCs are designed to prevent human exposure or consumption of contaminated groundwater, limit

future development to industrial uses because concentrations of contaminants do not meet 

residential levels, minimize stormwater infiltration from interacting with contaminated soil and 

threatening groundwater quality, protect indoor air quality from the intrusion of trichloroethylene and

tetrachloroethylene vapor in soil, and protect construction contractors from contamination that has 

been left in place. There are 18 contamination sites on the Tracy Site where one or more LUCs have 

been implemented. These sites are further discussed in Section 3.8.1 and Appendix B. A detailed 

description of the LUCs for each site is provided in the installation’s Land Use Control 

Implementation Plan (DLA 2018c).

3.1.2 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action

Long-term, moderate, beneficial impacts on land use would occur from implementation of the 

Proposed Action. Because the Master Plan is a planning document, its implementation would result 

in the siting of facilities in a manner that fully considers the planning districts, land uses categories, 

and planning constraints such as applicable LUCs.
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

3-4 | December 2020

Figure 3-1. Planning Districts of Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

December 2020 | 3-5

The projects listed in the Future Development Plan would be sited so as not to result in incompatible 

land uses. Under COA 1, the Child Development Center would relocate from Building 32 in the 

Warehousing District to Building 100 in the Community/Administration District. This relocation would 

correct an incompatible siting. Under COAs 2 and 3, the Child Development Center would remain 

within the Warehousing District but other community/administration-type facilities would be sited

nearby allowing for a potential future change of land use in the vicinity of Buildings 6 and 32 and 

compatible development. Other projects such as the installation-wide emergency generators and 

biomass power plant would be sited within the Utility District and would have no adverse effect on 

existing land uses or land use planning procedures. 

Long-term, minor, beneficial impacts on recreation would occur. Projects such as retrofitting Building 

32 into a fitness center and café (for COA 1) and repurposing Building 6 for an indoor fitness center

(for COA 2) would benefit recreation at the installation by increasing the quality of fitness

opportunities. 

No Action Alternative

Land uses at Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin and in the surrounding area would remain 

unchanged from existing conditions. Existing incompatible land use sitings, such as the Child 

Development Center and a fitness center within the Warehousing District, would remain unchanged.

No short- or long-term impacts on land use would occur. 

3.2 Noise 

3.2.1 Existing Conditions

Noise can be defined as unwanted sound and can result in impacts on humans. The standard unit of 

measure for sound is decibels, and the A-weighted decibel is a unit of measurement that represents 

how humans respond to sound.

The ambient noise environment at the installation is affected primarily by warehouse operations and 

rail traffic on nearby railroad tracks. Specific on-installation sources of noise consist of vehicles, 

semi-trailers, forklifts, and other cargo-moving machines at the Tracy Site and occasional agriculture 

equipment at the Tracy Annex. Given these sources of noise at the installation, the ambient noise 

environment on the installation resembles an industrial setting. Few noise sensitive receptors are on 

the installation. The Child Development Center at Building 32 and the recreational fields north of 

Building 100 are the only locations on the installation where noise sensitive receptor populations 

may exist.

The properties adjoining the installation on three sides (i.e., north, south, and east) are largely used 

for agriculture and noise from agriculture equipment is occasional. No noise sensitive receptors are 

present on these properties. The properties adjoining the installation to the west are mainly 

residential housing and represent noise sensitive receptors. The installation is separated from these 

properties by Chrisman Road, and the noise environment at these properties is largely dominated by 

automobile traffic and sounds consistent with a residential area (e.g., dogs barking, children playing). 

Noise from aircraft flyovers can be heard occasionally. The installation is more than 2 miles from 

Tracy Municipal Airport so noise from airport operations is negligible.
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

3-6 | December 2020

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action

Long-term, minor, adverse and beneficial effects on the noise environment would occur from 

implementation of the Proposed Action. The projects identified in the Future Development Plan

include design and siting features to reduce noise levels resulting in a long-term, beneficial effect on 

the noise environment. These projects would be designed to comply with the Installation Design 

Guide, which includes noise abatement techniques such as berms, sound barrier walls, and planting 

of trees and other vegetation as noise buffers in specific areas to screen traffic and industrial areas

from surrounding sensitive land uses. Noise from most new facilities would be similar to that of the 

existing facilities on the installation and typical of an industrial environment. The distance between

the installation boundary and off-installation noise sensitive receptors is great enough that noise 

from the proposed projects would not significantly impact the receptors. 

Projects would be sited according to compatible land use for consolidation and separation of these 

higher noise generating uses from lesser noise areas. Some existing incompatible sitings would be 

corrected, including relocating the Child Development Center from the Warehouse District to the 

Community/Administration District under COA 1. Noise from industrial operations at the installation 

would be less apparent to children at this proposed siting.

The Future Development Plan include a biomass plant on the installation. Biomass plants burn 

biomass fuel to heat water and produce steam that turns an electricity-generating turbine. During this 

process, pressurized steam periodically vents, which creates noise. In accordance with Department 

of Defense Instruction 6055.12, Hearing Conservation Program, equipment considered for purchase 

should have the lowest sound emissions levels that are technologically and economically feasible, 

which would include installation of vent and blow-off silencers for the proposed biomass plant. The 

proposed biomass plant would be sited in the Utility District along the northern edge of the Tracy Site 

where sufficient space exists to site the biomass plant at a proper distance from off-installation noise 

sensitive receptors, such as residences, to ensure that there would be no significant noise effects on 

these receptors.

No Action Alternative

Existing conditions would remain the same as described in Section 3.2.1. Therefore, no effects on 

noise would occur.

3.3 Air Quality

3.3.1 Existing Conditions

National Ambient Air Quality Standards have been established for the six criteria pollutants: ozone, 

which is regulated through its precursors nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds; carbon 

monoxide; nitrogen dioxide; sulfur dioxide; particulate matter, measured as equal to or less than 

2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) and equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10); and lead. 

The portion of San Joaquin County where the installation is located is designated by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency as nonattainment for ozone (extreme) and PM2.5 (serious), 

maintenance for PM10, and unclassified/attainment for all other criteria pollutants (USEPA 2020a). 

California has also established its own ambient air quality standards for these pollutants, which in 
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

December 2020 | 3-7

some cases are stricter than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, and for sulfates, hydrogen 

sulfide, and visibility reducing particulates. San Joaquin County has been designated by the 

California Air Resources Board as nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, and 

unclassified/attainment for the remaining criteria pollutants and sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and 

visibility reducing particulates (CARB 2020).

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin is a synthetic minor source of stationary air emissions. The 

installation holds several air permits that limit air emissions from stationary sources so that the 

installation remains below the Title V major source thresholds. Most air emissions on the installation 

are produced from the operation of emergency generators, paint booths, and other industrial 

equipment (DLA 2014a).

Ongoing global climate change has the potential to increase average temperatures, alter 

precipitation patterns, and increase the frequency and severity of droughts in central California. As a 

result, the regional availability of water, agriculture patterns, wildfire potential, and health of 

populations could be adversely impacted from climate change (USGCRP 2018).

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action

Short- and long-term, minor, adverse and beneficial effects on air quality would occur from 

implementation of the Proposed Action. Construction, demolition, and any type of land disturbance

for the projects of the Future Development Plan as well as for the projects of the IPMP and INRMP 

would produce temporary air emissions from such activities. Based on the timing of these projects, 

these air emissions would be staggered over approximately 20 years as the various projects are 

implemented, which would minimize annual emissions. In general, the projects of COA 3 would 

produce the greatest air emissions because they entail the greatest land disturbance and intensity of 

activity, while the projects of COA 1 would produce the fewest air emissions because they entail the 

least land disturbance and intensity of activity. The project to construct a Western Distribution Center 

would likely produce the greatest air emissions based on the large footprint of the proposed building. 

While full implementation of the projects, particularly for COAs 2 and 3, is likely to increase net 

indoor building space at the installation, many of the projects would replace older and inefficient 

buildings with modern, energy-efficient, sustainable buildings, which could result in a potential 

reduction in air emissions from heating these structures. The Future Development Plan also 

proposes a biomass power plant, microgrid controls, upgrades to backup electric generators and 

exterior lighting throughout the installation, and a utility scale solar photovoltaic array. Greater use of 

energy efficient infrastructure as well as renewable energy by the installation would lessen its 

dependence on fossil fuel-based energy and result in beneficial effects on air quality and a reduction 

in greenhouse gas emissions from the operational activities of the installation. Such a reduction 

would negligibly reduce the installation’s contribution to the global greenhouse gas inventory and the 

ongoing effects of global climate change. 

While the installation-wide emergency generator project would produce new air emissions, the 

project also would remove older, more emissive generators located at various buildings across the 

installation. The installation-wide emergency generator project would use newer, less emissive 

technology than the current generators, which would result in beneficial effects on air quality. The 

installation’s potential to emit would be updated each time an existing stationary air emissions 
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

3-8 | December 2020

source is deactivated or a new stationary emissions source is activated. New stationary emissions 

sources would be permitted by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Depending on 

the projects that are ultimately implemented, it is possible the installation would need to revise its air 

permits to ensure it remains a synthetic minor source of emissions.

The use of chemical pesticides would result in the emission of negligible quantities of volatile organic 

compounds. Pesticide emissions are a function of the vapor pressure of the active ingredients of the 

pesticide and the application method. Emissions would occur during the pesticide application 

process and within 30 days of application (AFCEC 2018). The IPMP’s use of non-chemical control 

efforts, to the extent possible, prior to using chemical pesticides would minimize volatile organic 

compound emissions from such activities.

As discussed in Section 3.5.1, the installation is not in a floodplain, so no impacts on installation 

infrastructure are expected should frequency and severity of flooding increase from climate change. 

No climate change adaptation or mitigation options would be needed. The installation has limited 

natural ecosystems (see Section 3.6.1); therefore, impacts on these resources from the Proposed 

Action in concert with global climate change is anticipated to be negligible. 

No Action Alternative

Existing conditions would remain the same as described in Section 3.3.1. Therefore, no effects on 

air quality would occur.

3.4 Geological Resources

3.4.1 Existing Conditions

Geology. The installation is located along the western border of the San Joaquin Valley, which is in 

the southern region of the Great Valley Geomorphic Province. The San Joaquin Valley is a structural 

and topographic basin that gently slopes to the north with an offset western axis. It is bound to the 

east by the Sierra Nevada Range, which is comprised of metamorphic and igneous rocks covered by 

sedimentary deposits thousands of feet deep; the Coast Ranges to the west, which are comprised of 

Cenozoic and Mesozoic aged sedimentary rocks that have been folded and faulted and are covered 

by metamorphic rocks; and the Sacramento River-San Joaquin River Delta to the north. The upper 

10 to 50 feet of the San Joaquin Valley are made up of soils that are being depleted south of the 

Sacramento River-San Joaquin River Delta (Scheirer and Magoon 2007, USGS 2020a).

The installation is comprised of the Tertiary- and Quaternary-age Tulare formation that has clay, 

sand, gravel, and silt embedded at depths from 35 to 220 feet. Between 220 and 430 feet, the 

Corcoran Clay Member (Tulare subunit)—known for lower permeability from the silty sandy clay, 

clay, and silt embedded—is found. The Lower Tulare Member is found at 430 to 500 feet and 

consists of gravel, silt, and lenticular deposits of clay (USGS 1983, USGS 2020b). 

Topography. The installation is in an upland valley south of the Sacramento River-San Joaquin 

River Delta. Elevations on the installation range from 47 feet above mean sea level at the northeast 

corner of Tracy Annex to 114 feet above mean sea level at the southernmost portion of the Tracy 

Site near Chrisman Road. The topography is gently sloping (USGS 1954). The natural drainage is 

north-northeast towards a tributary of the Old River.
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

December 2020 | 3-9

Soils. With the exception of the northwest area, the Tracy Site is almost exclusively covered by 

either pavement or buildings. Grading and site construction from previous development has 

disturbed soils. This disturbed soil unit is Capay-Urban land complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes. The

natural soil structure of this unit has been mostly removed, and it is moderately well-drained and 

while it rarely floods, it may pond. The primary soil at the Tracy Annex is well-drained Capay clay, 0 

to 1 percent slopes. El Solyo clay and Stomar clay loams, both with 0 to 2 percent slopes, cover a 

small area north of the Tracy Site within the southern portion of the Tracy Annex (SCS 1992, NRCS 

2019). 

Installation soil units are characterized as having “moderately low to moderately high” limiting layers 

and may indicate the soil has features unfavorable for a specific use, especially when the shrinkswell nature of the soils is taken into account. Additionally, the soils are moderately alkaline, which 

may create a corrosive effect on ferrous construction materials (SCS 1992, USDA 2018, NRCS 

2019).

Valley Fever (coccidioidomycosis) is a respiratory infection caused by a fungus (Coccidioides 

immitis) that lives in the top 2 to 12 inches of soil. The fungus is present in soils within San Joaquin 

County, and the highest rates are found in the City of Tracy. Disturbance of the soils can disperse 

the fungal spores, which can be inhaled by people to spread Valley Fever. Symptoms of Valley 

Fever include cough, fever, chest pain, muscle aches, fatigue, and skin rash. Valley Fever cannot be 

transmitted from person-to-person, and workers in construction, agriculture, and other professions 

that entail soil disturbance are at highest risk for exposure. Approximately 60 percent of infections 

are mild; however, approximately five percent result in hospitalization (SJC PHS 2020, CDPH 2013).

Farmland. The Natural Resources Conservation Service classifies irrigated soils at the installation 

as prime farmland (SCS 1992, NRCS 2019). The Tracy Annex is the only portion of the installation 

where soils are irrigated; therefore, prime farmland is not present on the Tracy Site but is present on 

the Tracy Annex. The California Department of Conservation classifies all soils at the Tracy Site as 

urban and built-up land and some soils at the Tracy Annex as prime farmland and others as 

farmland of local importance (California DOC 2016). The Tracy Annex is the only portion of the 

installation that is actively farmed. DLA leases the Tracy Annex to Philip Martin Farms for farming.

Geologic Hazards. The installation is in the immediate vicinity of four faults: the Black Butte, 

Midway, Vernalis, and San Joaquin. Other faults within 55 miles of the installation that have 

experienced historic displacement within the past 200 years include Marsh Creek, Las Positas, 

Calaveras, Hayward, and San Andreas (California DOC 2010). The U.S. Geological Survey 

estimates there is a 2 percent chance that an earthquake will occur in a 50-year period in the vicinity 

of the installation that would produce a peak horizontal acceleration between 0.4 and 1.6 

acceleration of gravity (USGS 2019). The high organic alluvium within the county makes it 

vulnerable to earthquakes, and San Joaquin County has determined it is highly conceivable an 

earthquake of large magnitude may occur in northern California prior to 2036. With the known 

geologic and seismic conditions, the installation could expect a moderate to high potential for 

expansive soils and a moderate potential for liquefaction depending on the location and conditions 

(San Joaquin County 2017).
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

3-10 | December 2020

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action

Geology. No effects on geology would occur. No unique geological features or regional stratigraphy, 

lithology, or geological structures would be impacted by the Proposed Action.

Topography. Long-term, negligible, adverse effects on topography would occur. The projects 

proposed at the Tracy Site are either renovations of existing buildings or new construction that would 

be sited on previously disturbed areas resulting in minimal topographical change. Siting the 

proposed solar photovoltaic array at the Tracy Annex under COA 3 would have negligible impacts on 

topography given the naturally flat land of the Annex. There is little to no ground disturbance 

associated with any project of the IPMP and INRMP; therefore, these projects would have no 

anticipated effect on topography.

Soils. Long-term, minor, adverse effects on soils would occur from the projects of the Future 

Development Plan. The majority of the projects identified for the Tracy Site would be sited in areas 

underlain by Capay soils that have already been disturbed and where little natural soil structure 

remains. Because Tracy Annex soils have only been disturbed by agricultural practices, natural soil 

structure may be disrupted if the proposed solar photovoltaic array is sited on the Tracy Annex under 

COA 3. However, the solar photovoltaic array would be designed for fitting onto piles, which would 

minimize the amount of soil disturbance during construction. The shrink-swell characteristics of the 

soils at the installation put limitations that generally cannot be overcome without soil reclamation, 

special design, or installation procedures (SCS 1992, NRCS 2019). Project-specific site plans would 

limit sedimentation and erosion by incorporating best management practices (BMPs), project timing, 

and incorporation of sediment-control and soil-erosion measures. 

Personnel involved in soil disturbing activities would be at increased risk for exposure to 

Coccidioides immitis and infections of Valley Fever. Measures such as wetting soils prior to 

disturbance, using equipment with enclosed cabs, positioning workers upwind of soil disturbance 

activity, ceasing activities during windy conditions, using of respiratory protection, and cleaning 

equipment and vehicles prior to transport offsite would be implemented to minimize worker exposure 

and transport of fungal spores (CDPH 2013). 

Long-term, minor, beneficial effects on soils would result from implementation of the IPMP and 

INRMP. The IPMP’s use of non-chemical control efforts, to the extent possible, prior to using 

pesticides and the use of least-toxic pesticides would have beneficial effects on soils. Additionally, 

no scheduled spraying would occur until a survey confirms the necessity. The INRMP projects 

include soil erosion, compaction and sedimentation programs, and monitoring of soil conditions from 

construction activities. 

Farmland. No adverse effects on farmland would occur on the Tracy Site portion of the installation

because the Tracy Site is not classified as any type of farmland by the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service or California Department of Conservation. 

Long-term, minor, adverse effects on farmland would occur on the Tracy Annex. Siting the proposed 

solar photovoltaic array on the Tracy Annex under COA 3 would result in the permanent conversion 

of up to approximately 170 acres of both prime farmland and farmland of local importance to 

nonagricultural use. Farmland is bountiful to the north, south, and east of the installation, and the 

loss of 170 acres would not adversely impact the region’s ability to sustain farming. Additionally, the 
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

December 2020 | 3-11

Tracy Annex is leased to Philip Martin Farms for agriculture. The lessee farms large areas 

throughout the region, and the loss of a portion of the Tracy Annex for farming is unlikely to affect 

their business. DLA would consult with the U.S. Department of Agriculture regarding conversion of 

any portion of the Tracy Annex to non-farmland use when the solar photovoltaic array project is 

further defined and ready for consultation. 

Geologic Hazards. Long-term, minor, adverse effects on humans and property could occur from the 

geologic hazards inherent to the region. To reduce the potential for damage during future 

earthquake events, new buildings and infrastructure would be designed to meet the regional seismic 

load and applicable building code. 

No Action Alternative

Existing conditions would remain the same as described in Section 3.4.1. Therefore, no effects on 

geological resources would occur with implementation of the No Action Alternative. 

3.5 Water Resources

3.5.1 Existing Conditions

Surface Water. The installation has no natural surface water bodies. Natural drainage flows towards 

Tom Paine Slough, which is approximately 1.25 miles north-northeast of the installation (see 

Figure 1-1). Tracy Site stormwater runoff flows to the north via an underground conveyance system 

and concrete-lined ditches. It drains to an evaporation/percolation holding reservoir in the

northwestern portion of the Tracy Site. Water from high-intensity storm events is pumped off-site to 

the West Side District canal and is ultimately discharged into the San Joaquin River (DLA 2020). 

See Section 3.7.1 for additional information on stormwater systems at the Tracy Site. Tracy Annex 

stormwater runoff flows to the north following natural topography features. Water that does not 

evaporate recharges the shallow aquifer when it infiltrates the near-surface sediments.

Groundwater. Groundwater-bearing units beneath the installation are comprised of unconsolidated 

and interbedded layers of coarse and fine-grained sediments attributed to the Central Valley Aquifer 

System, which can extend thousands of feet below ground surface (Planert and Williams 1995). The 

water table depth at the Tracy Site ranges between 20 and 50 feet below ground surface and at the 

Tracy Annex ranges between 10 and 20 feet below ground surface. Sediment texture changes may 

cause perched groundwater conditions within 4 feet of the ground surface. The water-bearing 

sediments of the area are comprised of three hydrologic units. The hydrologic units include a lower 

confined system extending to deeper saline groundwater, a semi-confined upper unit, and a 

Corcoran Clay Unit in-between that acts as an aquitard beneath the installation. The upper unit has 

received past releases of solvents and pesticides, and several plumes have been documented in the 

groundwater that extended from the Tracy Site to the Tracy Annex (DLA 2020). See Section 3.8.1

for more information on groundwater contamination. 

The Lower Tulare formation is moderately permeable. It can accommodate most industrial, 

municipal, and agricultural production with groundwater wells producing up to 3,000 gallons per 

minute (California DWR 2006). The installation’s potable water is provided from three on-site 

groundwater wells (DLA 2013a). See Section 3.7.1 for details on the potable water system.
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

3-12 | December 2020

Floodplains. The installation is not in a floodplain (San Joaquin County 2009, FEMA 2020). The 

closest floodplain is associated with the Tom Paine Slough, approximately 1.25 miles northnortheast of the installation.

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action

Surface Water. Long-term, minor, adverse effects on surface water would occur. The Future 

Development Plan may increase the amount of impervious surface on the installation, but the 

increase cannot be estimated because the proposed projects are conceptual. Such an increase in 

impervious surfaces may result in increased stormwater runoff, which could adversely affect surface 

water. The installation would implement BMPs and low-impact development (LID) practices in 

accordance with Section 438 of the EISA (USEPA 2009). Thus, post-development hydrology would 

be equal to or less than pre-development hydrology to the extent technically feasible using LID 

approach design techniques to detain, infiltrate, store, filter and evaporate runoff at the source. 

Groundwater. Long-term, minor, adverse effects on groundwater would occur. An increase in the 

amount of impervious surface at the installation may result in less area for surface water to infiltrate 

to recharge groundwater. Adverse effects would be minimized through long-term stormwater-control 

measures and LID design applications for groundwater recharge in accordance with Section 438 of 

EISA. Groundwater quality and natural hydrologic function would be maintained or restored with the 

implementation of these measures. 

There is the potential that a release of hazardous materials, petroleum products, or hazardous 

wastes could occur and contaminate groundwater. Implementation of applicable federal, state, local, 

and installation regulations and plans, as described in Section 3.8.2, would minimize the potential 

for releases to reach groundwater. 

Floodplains. No effects on floodplains would occur. No projects would be sited in floodplains given 

that the installation is approximately 1.25 miles from the nearest floodplain.

No Action Alternative

Existing conditions would remain the same as described in Section 3.5.1. No new impervious 

surface would be added to the installation. Therefore, no effects on water resources would occur.

3.6 Biological Resources

3.6.1 Existing Conditions

Vegetation. On the Tracy Site, 401 of the 448 acres are developed for industrial land uses and 

contain minimal vegetation. The remaining acreage is in the northern and eastern portions of the 

Tracy Site and contain primarily annual grasslands. Vegetation observed on the installation during 

biological surveys included nonnative grasses, forbs, and ornamental shrubs and trees. The Tracy 

Annex is 460 acres of agricultural land and includes row crops such as safflower (Carthamus 

tinctoris) and alfalfa (Medicago sativa). A 2012 survey concluded 31 invasive species had been 

observed at the installation (DLA 2013b). 
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

December 2020 | 3-13

Wildlife. Fifty-six wildlife species (i.e., 44 birds, eight mammals, two reptiles, and two amphibians) 

have been observed on the installation during various biological surveys. In the northwestern portion 

of the Tracy Site, a stormwater evaporation/percolation holding reservoir and two lagoons for the

wastewater treatment plant provide foraging and resting habitats for various waterfowl and 

shorebirds like American coots (Fulica americana) and red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus). 

This area also provides foraging habitat and water for bats including Yuma myotis (Myotis 

yumanensis), Mexican free-tailed bats (Tadarida brasiliensis), pallid bats (Antrozous pallidus) and 

big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus), all of which have been observed on the installation. Additionally, 

common amphibians such as the bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus) and Pacific treefrog (Pseudacris 

regilla) are likely to occur in these areas. Wildlife species commonly observed in the landscaped 

park/ball field area in the northwestern corner of the Tracy Site include great horned owls (Bubo 

virginianus) nesting in trees; Pacific treefrogs throughout the landscaped area using cones, wood 

pallets, and other objects as cover; and other birds and mammals using the area for foraging, cover, 

and nesting. There is no suitable habitat for, and no incidental observations of, fish on the installation 

(DLA 2013b).

The Tracy Annex’s agriculture land provides suitable resting and foraging habitat for a range of 

wildlife species including birds (e.g., red-tailed hawk [Buteo jamaicensis], Swainson’s hawk [Buteo 

swainsoni], American kestrel [Falco sparverius], California horned lark [Eremophila alpestris actia], 

and western meadowlark [Sturnella neglecta]), reptiles (e.g., gopher snake [Pitouphis catenifer 

catenifer]), and mammals (e.g., coyote [Canis latrans]) (DLA 2013b).

Protected Species. Protected species include federally and state-listed species (California statelisted endangered, threatened, candidate, or species of special concern), birds on the federal Birds 

of Conservation Concern list, and plants identified by the California Native Plant Society as rare or 

threatened. Raptors are protected under state law (California Fish and Game Code, Sections 3503, 

3503.5, 3505 and 3513, and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §§ 251.1, 652 and 783 to 

786.6) and are considered special-status animals. Federally listed species are protected under the 

Endangered Species Act, migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), 

and bald eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. All other listed 

species are not provided species-specific management but are taken into consideration in 

developing land management actions and priorities. 

Based on the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation Report, nine federally listed species 

could occur on or near the installation. These species are the San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis 

mutica), Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas), California Red-legged Frog (Rana draytonii), 

California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense), Delta Smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus), 

San Bruno Elfin Butterfly (Callophrys mossii bayensis), Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle 

(Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), and Vernal 

Pool Tadpole Shrimp (Lepidurus packardi) (USFWS 2020). No federally listed plant or animal 

species have been observed at the installation (DLA 2018b). 

No state-listed plant species or other special-status plant species classified as rare, threatened, or 

endangered by the California Native Plant Society have been observed on the installation. One 

state-listed bird species—the state threatened Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni)—and two statespecies of special concern—the loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) and the burrowing owl 

(Athene cunicularia)—have been observed on the Tracy Annex (DLA 2013b). Burrowing owls have 

not been documented during surveys, but this species is incidentally observed on the Tracy Annex a 

few times each year with the last reported in July 2019 (Paslak 2020). Four other state-listed bird 
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

3-14 | December 2020

species (i.e., bald eagle [Haliaeetus leucocephalus], bank swallow [Riparia riparia], California black 

rail [Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus], and greater sandhill crane [Grus Canadensis tabida]) could 

infrequently use the installation for foraging or migration. In addition to Swainson’s hawk, three other 

raptor species have been observed on the Tracy Annex: American kestrel (Falco sparverius), great 

horned owl (Bubo virginianus), and red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis). Although these species are 

not protected by state regulations, they are protected under the MBTA. Those species and other 

migratory birds might use the area for nesting, foraging, or resting during migration (DLA 2013b).

The installation falls within the USFWS designated Delta Smelt critical habitat; however, there are no 

perennial water sources or suitable fish habitat on the installation to support this species. There are 

no known proposed critical habitats for listed species on the installation (USFWS 2020, DLA 2018b). 

Wetlands. Wetlands include marshes, swamps, bogs, and other similar areas considered high 

resource value aquatic sites. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducted a jurisdictional 

determination at the installation in 1996. There are no known Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 

regulated wetlands on the installation; however, there is a stormwater evaporation/percolation 

holding reservoir that supports the function and structure of a wetland (DLA 2018b). While there are 

vernal pools and seasonal wetlands that support listed species outside the installation, none were 

observed on the installation during site surveys (DLA 2013b). 

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action

Vegetation. Long-term, minor, adverse and beneficial effects on vegetation would occur. Most 

projects of the Future Development Plan would be sited in developed or previously disturbed areas 

on the Tracy Site where little vegetation currently exists. The proposed solar photovoltaic array 

would be sited on the Tracy Annex under COA 3; therefore, crop vegetation would be lost at that 

location. The siting of projects is not expected to result in a loss of native vegetation given the lack of 

native vegetation on the installation. The IPMP addresses weed control and identifies sensitive 

areas that would be considered before implementing pest controls. Additionally, the INRMP projects 

include strategies to enhance and protect wildlife habitats (i.e., riparian, terrestrial, aquatic, wetlands) 

for beneficial effects on vegetation. 

Wildlife. Long-term, minor, adverse and beneficial effects on wildlife species and their habitats 

would occur. There is no documented native wildlife or suitable habitat on the portions of the Tracy 

Site where the projects would be sited. The Tracy Annex provides resting and foraging for various 

migratory and native bird species and cover and foraging area for mammals, which would be 

reduced if the proposed solar photovoltaic array is sited on the Tracy Annex under COA 3. However, 

similar agricultural habitat occurs elsewhere at the Tracy Annex and in the surrounding area. Where 

possible, riparian vegetation, marsh, and large trees at the stormwater holding reservoir, two 

lagoons for the wastewater treatment plant, and undisturbed open space would be maintained as 

habitat for wildlife species. The INRMP includes programs and measures to enhance and protect 

wildlife habitats (i.e., riparian, terrestrial, aquatic, wetlands) and routine habitat assessments and 

monitoring would have beneficial effects on wildlife. Several projects would be implemented to 

survey or inventory wildlife on the installation. Information obtained from these efforts would help 

installation personnel manage wildlife resources. 
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

December 2020 | 3-15

Protected Species. Long-term, minor, adverse and beneficial effects on protected species would 

occur. No federally listed endangered or threatened species are known to occur on the installation; 

therefore, the Proposed Action would have no effect on federally listed species. The installation does 

fall within USFWS designated Delta Smelt critical habitat; however, there are no perennial water 

sources or suitable fish habitat on the installation (USFWS 2020, DLA 2018b). Therefore, the 

Proposed Action would have no effect on designated critical habitat.

Three state-protected bird species have been documented at the Tracy Annex. If the proposed solar 

photovoltaic array is sited on the Tracy Annex under COA 3, an adverse effect from the reduction in 

habitat used by these state-protected bird species would occur. However, similar habitat occurs 

widely in the area. The California Burrowing Owl Consortium survey protocols would be conducted 

prior to constructing the proposed solar photovoltaic array in any area with suitable burrowing owl 

habitat and applicable mitigation and protective measures would be implemented. A 500-foot buffer 

and a pedestrian survey of the project area would be conducted prior to any activities within suitable 

burrowing owl habitat. If burrows or burrowing owls are detected, a breeding season survey and 

census would be conducted. A preconstruction survey might be required no more than 30 days prior 

to any ground-disturbing activity. If activities must occur within 164 feet of an occupied burrow during 

the non-breeding season (September 1 through January 31), then on-site passive relocation would 

be implemented. No ground-disturbing activities would occur within 246 feet of an occupied burrow 

during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31) (CBOC 1993).

Long-term, minor, adverse effects on migratory birds would occur. MBTA-listed bird species occur 

on the installation year-round and nest there from February 15 through August 31 annually. Due to 

the lack of natural surface waters and natural vegetation at the installation, significant long-term 

impacts on bird species would not occur from the siting, timing, and design of the projects. With 

respect to project timing, it is recommended that construction be performed outside the nesting 

season (i.e., February 15 through August 31). Implementation of a seasonal restriction would avoid 

take of most breeding birds, their nests, and their young (i.e., eggs, hatchlings, fledglings).

To ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act, the IPMP periodically evaluates on-going 

and proposed pest-control operations. Implementation of formal INRMP management plans and 

routine assessments and monitoring of these special status species would provide a method for 

protecting these species and a baseline of data that can be used to prioritize projects and identify 

efficient allocation of resources. 

The Proposed Action does not qualify as an action under the Endangered Species Act because it is 

limited to the implementation of the Master Plan, IPMP, and INRMP and considers the location, 

timing, and design of the projects in these plans. Therefore, consultation with the USFWS under 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is unnecessary for the Proposed Action. Section 7 

consultation will be conducted on a project-by-project basis, as needed, when the projects become 

further defined and ready for consultation. 

Wetlands. No effects on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional wetlands would occur because 

the installation does not contain any such wetlands. When possible, operational impacts to wetland 

vegetation at the stormwater holding reservoir would be minimized (DLA 2018b).

No Action Alternative

Existing conditions would remain the same as described in Section 3.6.1. Therefore, no effects on 

biological resources would occur. The No Action Alternative does not provide for the formal 
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

3-16 | December 2020

implementation of a routine habitat assessment and monitoring program that would occur if the 

INRMP were implemented. As a result, the health and condition of the wildlife populations would not 

improve, and management measures to increase the abundance and biodiversity of wildlife would 

not be implemented. Although the management measures proposed in the INRMP would not be 

implemented, the management measures currently employed by the installation would continue to

ensure the installation remains in compliance with applicable federal and state natural resources 

regulations. 

3.7 Infrastructure and Transportation

3.7.1 Existing Conditions

Electrical System. The electrical system at the installation is owned and managed by DLA and 

consists of overhead and underground lines. Electrical service is provided by Pacific Gas and 

Electric, which owns and maintains the incoming transmission line and main circuit breakers. Backup 

power is available through several emergency generators throughout the installation and are used to 

power mission-critical functions, emergency lighting, and alarm systems. The installation’s annual 

electrical peak demand for fiscal year (FY) 2011 was approximately 21.5 million kilowatt hours (DLA 

2013c). 

Natural Gas System. Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin owns and operates the natural gas 

distribution system at the Tracy Site. Natural gas at the installation is provided by Pacific Gas and 

Electric via a single point of entry. The annual natural gas usage for FY2011 was approximately 

51,000 million British thermal units. The existing natural gas capacity at the Tracy Site meets 

mission needs and is expected to accommodate planned development (DLA 2013c). 

Liquid Fuel System. Gasoline and diesel are used as vehicle fuels at the installation, while propane 

is primarily used to fuel forklifts (DLA 2020). Propane is also used at some facilities for space and 

water heating and cooking. The annual gasoline usage for FY2011 was approximately 10,700 

gallons, while the annual diesel usage was approximately 47,000 gallons. The annual propane 

usage was approximately 150,000 gallons. All liquid fuels at the installation are stored in 

aboveground storage tanks. No underground tanks are used for fuels storage (DLA 2013c).

Potable Water System. Potable (i.e., drinking) water at the Tracy Site is provided by three on-site 

groundwater wells (Wells 7, 8, and 9) that are owned and managed by Defense Distribution Depot, 

San Joaquin. The installation also owns and maintains two water storage tanks and 19 miles of 

distribution piping. Wells 8 and 9 pump groundwater to a water treatment plant that disinfects the 

water with chlorine before discharging it to a 500,000-gallon ground-level storage tank. The water is 

delivered via booster pumps to the water distribution system. System pressure is maintained by an 

elevated 250,000-gallon storage tank, which also accepts and treats water from Well 7. The 

installation uses water for domestic purposes (e.g., faucets and toilets), landscape irrigation, and fire 

suppression. The installation’s fire-suppression system is served by dedicated fire pumps that draw 

water directly from the 500,000-gallon storage tank and provide water to the sprinkler systems in 

newer buildings. The annual water use for FY2011 was approximately 34,600,000 gallons (DLA 

2013a). 

Sanitary Sewer and Wastewater System. Wastewater is collected through a sewer system and 

conveyed to an on-installation wastewater treatment plant. Following treatment, wastewater is 

discharged to two on-site lagoons and either infiltrates into underlying groundwater or evaporates. 
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

December 2020 | 3-17

No wastewater is discharged to surface water (DLA 2013a). Average discharge into the lagoons is 

30,000 gallons per day with peak flows of 70,000 gallons per day and a total discharge capacity of 

350,000 gallons per day. The installation also maintains a Sewer System Management Plan that 

was last updated in 2012 (DLA 2020). 

Stormwater System. Stormwater at Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin is managed through a 

system of drain inlets, pipes, open channels, and pumping stations. Stormwater is conveyed to a 

holding reservoir in the northwest corner of the Tracy Site. The reservoir has a capacity of 24.4 acrefeet, and water naturally percolates or evaporates. Water from high-intensity storm events is pumped 

off-site to the West Side District canal and is ultimately discharged into the San Joaquin River (DLA 

2020). The Tracy Annex does not have a stormwater management system. 

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin does not perform activities that are regulated by a National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System industrial stormwater permit. A Notice of Termination for the 

installation’s industrial stormwater permit was filed effective November 2015. The installation

maintains a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for the Tracy Site as a BMP. The Stormwater 

Pollution Prevention Plan identifies sources of pollutants that may affect the quality of stormwater 

discharges and identifies and implements site-specific BMPs to reduce or prevent polluted 

stormwater discharges (DLA 2012). 

Communications System. A telephone switch at the installation with a 3,000-port capacity is 

currently operating at less than 70 percent capacity and is managed through a service contract with 

a communications contractor. Communications lines at the installation are both underground and 

pole-mounted (DLA 2020). 

Solid Waste Management. Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin manages discarded materials 

through contracts with local service providers for collection, processing, and disposal. Recyclables 

are collected, marketed, and sold to a private contractor (DLA 2020). The installation recycles 

cardboard, paper, plastic, and metal through various service providers. Reusable pallets, scrap 

wood, and broken pallets are managed on-site. Yard trimmings, food scraps, and compostable 

paper (e.g., napkins and paper food wares) are composted at the discretion of the waste contractor. 

More than 3,000 tons of waste was disposed of and recycled in 2011 (DLA 2013a). The installation 

operates in accordance with a Solid Waste Management Plan (DLA 2020). No solid waste is 

generated at the Tracy Annex. 

Transportation. Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin is bounded by Chrisman Road at the 

western perimeter, 11th Street at the northern perimeter, Banta Road at the eastern perimeter, and a 

railroad at the southern perimeter. Interstate Highway 205 is north of the installation. This highway 

becomes Interstate Highway 580 west of Tracy and connects the city with the San Francisco Bay 

Area.

The Tracy Site can be accessed via three access control points (ACPs) along Chrisman Road (DLA 

2019). The Main Gate is on D Street (Valpico Road off-installation). The Truck Gate is on an 

unnamed roadway and provides access for large commercial vehicles. The Employee Gate is on 

Ennis Drive at the northwest corner of the installation and provides access to administrative 

buildings and other personnel facilities. There are designated left-turning lanes for vehicles travelling 

south on Chrisman Road to the installation and right merge lanes on Chrisman Road for vehicles 

exiting the installation to accommodate traffic flow. The ACPs have experienced queueing issues 

resulting in traffic backups on Chrisman Road during peak travel times. DLA is planning a project 
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

3-18 | December 2020

separate from the Master Plan to upgrade the Main Gate ACP with new entry control infrastructure 

and a traffic signal (DLA 2018d). Further details on the Main Gate ACP project are provided in 

Section 4.1. 

The Tracy Site roadway network was originally designed on a grid; however, as the installation 

expanded and warehouses were replaced with larger ones, the grid was shifted and thoroughfares 

were disconnected. The primary north-south roadways include 4th, 8th, and 9th Streets, and the 

primary east-west roadways include Ennis Drive, B Street, C Street, and D Street. All other roads on 

the installation are connected to these primary roads. The traffic level of service at the Tracy Site is 

below optimal. Currently, 9th Street is the only continuous north-south thoroughfare across the 

installation and cannot effectively carry the installation’s traffic because of its location, condition, and 

narrow gaps between warehouses. The Tracy Annex does not have ACPs or an established 

roadway network. Dirt roads within the Tracy Annex can be accessed from 11th Street, Chrisman 

Road, and Banta Road (DLA 2020). 

Parking at the Tracy Site is in designated lots, striped parking, and along streets in high-traffic areas. 

Pedestrian facilities at the Tracy Site are limited and focused near ACPs for walk-in functions. 

Pedestrian crossings are marked throughout the industrial areas, but many link areas that do not 

have an associated walkway system. Personnel at the installation use the outdoor recreation 

complex in the northwest portion of the installation and roadway networks for biking and jogging 

purposes (DLA 2020). Public transportation is provided by San Joaquin Regional Transit, which 

offers bus service connecting Stockton, Lodi, Tracy, Manteca, Ripon, and Lathrop. However, there 

are no bus stops with direct access to Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin (San Joaquin RTD 

2020).

The Union Pacific Railroad, adjacent to the southern boundary of the installation, is a major freight 

carrier in the San Joaquin Valley. The railroad covers two-thirds of the country and is focused on 

transporting food, agricultural products, and stone. The California Northern Railroad, which 

separates the Tracy Site from the Tracy Annex, runs local trains approximately 60 miles along the 

Interstate Highway 5 corridor from Tracy to Los Banos to the south. There is a former railroad yard 

and associated tracks on the installation; however, they are no longer used by Defense Distribution 

Depot, San Joaquin to transport materials. The installation uses over-the-road truck transport as a 

mode of moving and shipping supplies (DLA 2020). 

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action

All projects of the Future Development Plan are proposed to be sited in locations containing or 

adjacent to existing utility services and roadways. Therefore, only minor utility extensions would be 

needed to connect the project locations and additional roadways would not need to be constructed. 

The projects of the Future Development Plan would be initiated at different times over the next 20 

years, which would minimize temporary utility interruptions as the project sites are disconnected and 

reconnected to the various utility systems. 

Electrical System. Long-term, moderate, beneficial impacts on the electrical system would occur

from the Proposed Action. Although electrical demand would increase because of the overall 

increase in interior space, all new facilities would incorporate energy efficiency into their design to 

minimize electrical demand and meet future electrical needs. As a result, the increase in electricity 
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

December 2020 | 3-19

demand from the new facilities would be offset through improved efficiency and greater use of 

renewable sources. The Future Development Plan includes renewable energy projects such as a 

3-megawatt biomass power plant; microgrid controls; and a 26-megawatt, utility scale solar 

photovoltaic array. These projects would allow the installation to improve electrical system reliability, 

increase energy self-sufficiency, and reduce reliance on non-renewable energy sources.

Natural Gas System. Long-term, minor, adverse impacts on the natural gas system would occur

from the Proposed Action. All new construction at the Tracy Site would be connected to natural gas 

for heating resulting in an increased demand for natural gas. However, as noted for the electrical 

system, all new facilities would incorporate energy efficiency into their design, which would help to 

reduce natural gas demand. The installation’s natural gas system is anticipated to have sufficient 

capacity to accommodate planned development (DLA 2013c); therefore, impacts would be less than 

significant.

Liquid Fuel System. Long-term, minor, adverse and beneficial impacts on liquid fuel demand would 

occur from the Proposed Action. Most of the projects of the Future Development Plan would have no 

direct impacts on gasoline and diesel fuel consumption; however, the project to implement an 

installation-wide emergency generator would require additional petroleum products to be delivered 

and stored on the installation to fuel the generator. All new construction at the Tracy Site would be 

connected to natural gas for heating (DLA 2013c); therefore, a slight decrease in propane demand 

would occur if facilities that use propane for space and water heating are replaced.

Potable Water System. Long-term, minor, beneficial impacts on the potable water supply and 

delivery system would occur from the Proposed Action. The replacement of Well 7 is a project of the 

Future Development Plan that would improve the reliability of the installation’s water supply system. 

Although an increase in the number of faucets may result from the projects of the Future 

Development Plan, implementation of water-efficiency measures and other water conservation 

efforts would improve the performance and efficiency of the potable water system at the installation. 

Overall, the Proposed Action would reduce water use at the installation and improve delivery for 

building uses, irrigation, and fire suppression. 

Sanitary Sewer and Wastewater System. Long-term, minor, adverse impacts on the sanitary 

sewer and wastewater system would occur from the Proposed Action. Although an increase in the 

number of faucets may result from the projects of the Future Development Plan, incorporation of 

sustainable building practices would maximize water efficiency and minimize wastewater generation. 

The installation’s wastewater treatment plant has sufficient capacity to handle additional volumes

because it is operating at only 20 percent of capacity during peak demand. 

Stormwater System. Long-term, minor, adverse impacts on the stormwater system would occur

from the Proposed Action. The Future Development Plan may increase the amount of impervious 

surface on the installation, but the increase cannot be estimated because the proposed projects are 

conceptual. Such an increase in impervious surfaces could result in increased stormwater runoff and 

increased demand for the installation’s stormwater systems. However, the proposed projects would 

incorporate stormwater management recommendations such as the use of green stormwater 

infrastructure (e.g., landscaped areas, cisterns, rain gardens) to reduce the amount of runoff thereby 

decreasing demand on the stormwater management system. Additionally, as noted in Section 3.5.2, 

the installation would implement BMPs and LID practices in accordance with Section 438 of the 

EISA (USEPA 2009). Thus, post-development hydrology would be equal to or less than predevelopment hydrology to the extent technically feasible using LID approach design techniques to 
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

3-20 | December 2020

detain, infiltrate, store, filter and evaporate runoff at the source. These measures would minimize the 

adverse impacts on the installation’s stormwater system from additional impervious surface. 

Communications System. Long-term, minor, beneficial impacts on the communications system 

would occur from the Proposed Action. Designs for new building construction and expansions would 

include new communications infrastructure. The installation’s communications system has sufficient 

capacity to handle an increase in demand because the system is currently operating at less than 70 

percent capacity.

Solid Waste Management. Long-term, minor, adverse and beneficial impacts on solid waste 

management would occur from the Proposed Action. Additional missions and personnel may 

increase the volume of solid waste generated on the installation. Recycling programs would continue 

to be implemented and solid waste would continue to be managed in accordance with the 

installation’s Solid Waste Management Plan. The wood pallet recycling program listed in the Future 

Development Plan would facilitate the overall recycling program at the installation and increase solid 

waste diversion rates.

Transportation. Long-term, minor, adverse and beneficial impacts on the transportation system 

would occur from the Proposed Action. The projects of the Future Development Plan may require 

reconfiguration of the on-installation road network to accommodate the siting of buildings, parking, 

and access roads, which would further disrupt the original grid design. The establishment of a 

Western Distribution Center under COA 3 in a new large warehouse would require the most 

alteration to the road design. The Western Distribution Center and a potential increase in missions at 

the installation could increase the frequency of truck deliveries and daily personnel commutes to and 

from the installation, which would cause increased traffic volumes at the ACPs, increased vehicles 

on regional roadways, and increased demand for parking spaces. However, the projects of the 

Future Development Plan would be designed to include sufficient roadway and parking 

improvements to ensure that these projects do not significantly adversely impact traffic patterns and 

parking availability on the installation. The projects also would include sufficient pedestrian facilities 

to link complementary functions and encourage pedestrian and cyclist movement. The cumulative 

effects on transportation from the Proposed Action and upgrades to the Main Gate ACP are 

discussed in Section 4.1. 

No impacts on the railroads or public transportation options in the region would occur. The Proposed 

Action would not restore railroad service to the installation nor would not it provide public bus 

service. 

No Action Alternative

Infrastructure and transportation would remain the same as described in Section 3.7.1. Utility 

demand and roadway configurations would not change. Inefficient buildings and infrastructure would 

not be replaced with modern, energy-efficient buildings and infrastructure. No effects on 

infrastructure and transportation would occur. 
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

December 2020 | 3-21

3.8 Hazardous Materials and Wastes

3.8.1 Existing Conditions

Hazardous Materials, Petroleum Products, and Hazardous Wastes. Hazardous materials and 

petroleum products are used and stored in various locations across the installation for everyday use 

and as mission stock. The use of hazardous materials and petroleum products results in the 

generation and storage of hazardous wastes and used petroleum products. Defense Distribution 

Depot, San Joaquin is a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator of 

hazardous waste (i.e., generates more than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste in any one month) 

with facility identification number CA4971520834 (USEPA 2020b). Building 38 is the installation’s 

hazardous materials pharmacy and hazardous waste accumulation area (DLA 2014b). 

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin has a Hazardous Waste Management Plan that identifies 

roles and responsibilities, record keeping requirements, and spill contingency and response 

requirements for hazardous waste management (DLA 2014b). The installation also has a Spill 

Contingency Plan and a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan, which identify 

procedures and responsibilities for responding to spills of oils and hazardous substances (DLA 

2014c, DLA 2015b).

Environmental Contamination. Soil and groundwater contamination has been documented at 

multiple locations on the Tracy Site and Tracy Annex. The installation currently manages 18 

environmental contamination sites, and each site is subject to one or more LUC. Figure 3-2 shows 

the location of these contamination sites, and Appendix B summaries the sites. As described in 

Section 3.1.1, the LUCs imposed on the sites are designed to prevent human exposure or 

consumption of contaminated groundwater, limit future development to industrial uses because 

concentrations of contaminants do not meet residential levels, minimize stormwater infiltration from 

interacting with contaminated soil and threatening groundwater quality, protect indoor air quality from 

the intrusion of trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene vapor in soil, and protect construction 

contractors from contamination that has been left in place. A detailed description of the LUCs for 

each site is provided in the installation’s Land Use Control Implementation Plan (DLA 2018c).

Several of the projects of the Future Development Plan would be sited within environmental 

contamination sites. Specific examples include the paved police training area, Well 7 replacement, 

and Banta Road secondary access within the Southern Depot Soil Area; a vehicle and equipment 

maintenance building within Solid Waste Management Unit 20; and the solar photovoltaic array 

under COA 2 within the Northern Depot Soils Area, Eastern Depot Soils Area, Solid Waste 

Management Unit 1/Area 2, Area 3, and Operable Unit 1. Other installation-wide projects such as 

building renovations; warehouse retrofits; and security, utility, lighting, and signage upgrades may 

coincide with numerous environmental contamination sites.

Toxic Substances. Toxic substances pose a risk to human health and are addressed separately 

from hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. They include asbestos-containing materials 

(ACMs), lead-based paint (LBP), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), all of which are typically 

found in buildings and utilities infrastructure.
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

3-22 | December 2020

Figure 3-2. Environmental Contamination Sites and Groundwater Plumes on Defense 

Distribution Depot, San Joaquin
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

December 2020 | 3-23

ACMs are generally found in building materials such as floor tiles, mastic, roofing materials, pipe 

wrap, and wall plaster. USEPA has implemented several bans on various ACMs between 1973 and 

1990, so ACMs are most likely in older buildings (i.e., constructed pre-1990). According to the 

installation’s Asbestos Survey Report and Management Plan, many older buildings on the 

installation are known to contain ACMs. Of the buildings proposed for renovation or demolition in the 

Future Development Plan, Buildings 6, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 56, and 100 have been documented as 

containing ACMs (DLA 2009).

Lead was commonly used in paint for many years. The federal government banned the use of most 

LBP in 1978; therefore, it is assumed that all structures constructed prior to 1978 could contain LBP.

PCBs are man-made chemicals that persist in the environment and were widely used in construction 

materials and electrical products prior to 1979. All structures constructed prior to 1979 potentially 

include PCB-containing building materials. Older electrical infrastructure also might contain PCBs.

All electrical infrastructure identified as containing PCBs have been removed from the installation; 

however, PCB-containing fluorescent light ballasts and other PCB-containing equipment might be 

present within some older buildings.

Radon. USEPA rates San Joaquin County, California, as radon zone 3. Counties in zone 3 have a 

predicted average indoor radon screening level less than 2 picoCuries per liter (USEPA 1993). 

Radon gas accumulations greater than 4 picoCuries per liter are considered to represent a health 

risk to occupants.

Pesticides. The installation uses an integrated pest management approach to minimize the types 

and quantities of pesticides used at the installation. The least-toxic chemical controls are used, 

where appropriate. Pesticides used on the installation are stored and mixed in Building 238. Spill 

cleanup kits are kept in the pesticide storage areas and on pest control vehicles. All pesticides are 

applied in accordance with manufacturer label instructions and the IPMP (DLA 2018a).

3.8.2 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action

Hazardous Materials, Petroleum Products, and Hazardous Wastes. Long-term, minor, adverse 

and beneficial effects would occur. Most of the projects of the Future Development Plan would have 

no long-term effects on the overall use/generation, storage, and management of hazardous 

materials, petroleum products, and hazardous wastes at the installation; however, the project to 

implement an installation-wide emergency generator would require additional petroleum products to 

be stored on the installation to fuel the generator and the project to establish a new vehicle and 

equipment maintenance building would require changes to hazardous materials and hazardous 

wastes storage. New hazardous materials storage and hazardous waste collection points would be 

established in new or repurposed buildings and removed from demolished buildings, as needed. 

Hazardous materials, petroleum products, and hazardous wastes would be stored and managed in 

accordance with applicable federal, state, local, and installation regulations and plans. The 

installation’s Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Spill Contingency Plan, and a Spill Prevention, 

Control, and Countermeasure Plan would be amended, as needed. The installation’s status as a 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Large Quantity Generator would not be expected to 

change from implementation of the Proposed Action.
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

3-24 | December 2020

Environmental Contamination. No effects would occur from the installation’s 18 environmental 

contamination sites. These sites would not affect the ability to implement the Master Plan or its 

component plans. While some projects of the Future Development Plan would coincide with 

environmental contamination sites, the Master Plan is a planning document and these projects were 

sited to be consistent with the applicable LUCs. The installation’s Environmental Office would review 

all projects prior to implementation to determine if special design requirements or 

regulatory/contractor notification procedures are necessary. Where required, future buildings would 

be designed to prevent the migration of soil vapor to indoor air.

Some of the proposed projects would overlay groundwater plumes. The groundwater treatment 

processes and monitoring requirements for these plumes would continue, and project siting would 

avoid or replace groundwater monitoring wells. Groundwater from within the plumes would not be 

used for potable purposes. The proposed Well 7 replacement project would occur on the southern 

end of the Tracy Site, which is the farthest portion on the installation from the plumes and 

hydrologically upgradient. 

Toxic Substances. Long-term, minor, beneficial effects would occur from the removal of ACMs, 

LBP, and PCBs. Implementation of the projects of the Future Development Plan would demolish 

older buildings, which are more likely to contain ACMs, LBP, and PCBs, from the installation and 

replace them with newer buildings, which would be designed to be free of ACMs, LBP, and PCBs. 

Building renovations also could remove ACMs, LBP, and PCBs depending on the scope of 

renovation. Removal of these toxic substances from the installation would be beneficial because of 

an overall decrease in the amount of these materials to maintain.

Radon. No effects from radon would occur. In accordance with Unified Facilities Criteria 3-490-04A, 

Indoor Radon Prevention and Mitigation, DLA would design (passive and active systems, as 

applicable) and test the newly constructed and renovated buildings to reduce indoor radon levels to 

less than 4 picoCuries per liter.

Pesticides. Long-term, minor, beneficial effects on pesticide management would be occur. 

Implementation of the IPMP would reduce the reliance on chemical pesticides by requiring nonchemical control methods to be exhausted before the use of chemical pesticides. Additionally, 

implementation of the IPMP would minimize pesticide contamination by ensuring that only 

authorized pest control vehicles with lockable storage compartments and spill containment are used 

to transport pesticides from Building 238 to the application sites. 

No Action Alternative

Conditions would remain the same as described in Section 3.8.1. Therefore, no effects on 

hazardous materials and wastes would occur.
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

December 2020 | 4-1

4 Cumulative and Other Effects

4.1 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are the incremental effects of a proposed action when added to the aggregate 

effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. For this analysis, the 

temporal span of the Proposed Action is 20 years. The geographic boundaries of cumulative 

analysis vary depending on the resource and potential effects. For most resources, the spatial area 

of consideration for cumulative effects is the installation and adjacent properties; however, resources 

with farther-reaching effects, such as air quality, are analyzed with a regional perspective.

For most resource areas, the effects of past actions are now part of the existing environment 

described in Section 3. Identification of actions occurring at and adjacent to the installation during 

the same time as the Proposed Action ensures that all present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions that have the potential to result in cumulative effects are taken into consideration. The 

present and reasonably foreseeable future actions identified for this cumulative effects analysis are 

the following:

• Construction, demolition, renovation, and operations associated with the projects of the 

Future Development Plan. These projects would occur over 20 years. 

• Upgrade the Main Gate ACP. The ACP at the intersection of D Street (Valpico Road offinstallation) and Chrisman Road would be replaced with a modern facility. A new visitor 

center, identification check point, vehicle inspection area, overwatch building, active and 

passive vehicle barriers, security fencing, and asphalt pavement would be constructed. 

Building 3, Guard Booth 109, Guard Booth 106, Inspection Cover 119, and asphalt pavement 

would be demolished prior to construction. A traffic signal would be installed at the 

intersection of D Street/Valpico Road and Chrisman Road. Construction is anticipated for 

2021 (DLA 2018d). 

All environmental resource areas were initially evaluated for potential direct impacts from the 

Proposed Action. The initial evaluation determined that some environmental resource areas (i.e., 

aesthetic and visual resources, airspace management and safety, coastal zone management, 

cultural resources, health and safety, socioeconomics, and environmental justice) would not be 

directly impacted and were not analyzed in detail in this EA. As determined through the analyses 

provided in Section 3, beneficial effects on land use and recreation would be anticipated from the 

Proposed Action. Therefore, land use and recreation was not evaluated for potential cumulative 

effects.

The Proposed Action, when combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

would not result in cumulatively significant effects on any resource area. The resource areas that 

have the potential to be cumulatively affected by the Proposed Action are presented in the following 

paragraphs. These paragraphs describe the non-significant cumulative effects that would occur from 

the Proposed Action when combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

Noise. Temporary increases in noise would occur from the use of equipment and vehicles to support 

construction, demolition, and renovation for the cumulative actions. Such noise would be limited to 
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

4-2 | December 2020

areas in the vicinity of the actions. Selective siting and design of new construction would minimize 

long-term noise effects of future development. Noise sensitive receptors at the installation, such as 

the Child Development Center at Building 32 and recreational fields north of Building 100, would be 

most susceptible to these temporarily increased noise levels. Residences and schools would not be 

expected to be affected.

Air Quality. Temporary increases in air emissions would occur from the use of equipment and 

vehicles to support construction, demolition, and renovation for the cumulative actions. Permanent 

increases in air emissions would occur from new stationary sources (e.g., generators, furnaces, 

boilers, fuel tanks). However, the removal of existing stationary air emissions sources and 

implementation of energy efficient and renewable energy infrastructure would reduce air emissions. 

The installation’s potential to emit would be updated each time an existing stationary air emissions 

source is deactivated or a new stationary emissions source is activated. New stationary emissions 

sources would be permitted by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Depending on 

the projects that are ultimately implemented, it is possible the installation would need to revise its air 

permits to ensure it remains a synthetic minor source of emissions.

Geological Resources. Temporary increases in soil erosion and sedimentation from excavation, 

grading, and filling would occur during construction for the cumulative actions. Adverse effects would 

be minor because the majority of the installation is underlain by previously disturbed soils. 

Water Resources. Added impervious surfaces from the cumulative actions may increase the 

amount of stormwater runoff and reduce the amount of surface area available for groundwater 

recharge. BMPs and LID practices would be implemented to minimize stormwater runoff and 

increase groundwater infiltration. 

Biological Resources. Moderate, adverse, cumulative effects on vegetation, wildlife, and protected 

species would occur because past actions have highly developed the installation and surrounding 

area leaving only a minimal amount of native vegetation, wildlife habitat, and habitat capable of 

supporting protected species in and surrounding the installation.

Infrastructure and Transportation. Construction, demolition, and renovation associated with the 

cumulative actions could result in temporary disruptions of utilities and transportation services on the 

installation. Beneficial cumulative effects on transportation would occur from the Main Gate ACP 

upgrade, which would improve traffic circulation on and adjacent to the installation. The Main Gate 

ACP upgrade would help to alleviate the queueing issues that currently result in traffic backups on 

Chrisman Road during peak travel times and provide additional vehicle capacity to support future 

development under the Master Plan.

Hazardous Materials and Wastes. Construction, demolition, and renovation associated with the 

cumulative actions would temporarily increase the use of hazardous materials and petroleum 

products and the generation of hazardous wastes resulting in slightly increased potential for a 

release. Long-term, minor, beneficial cumulative effects would occur from removing older structures, 

which would reduce the amount ACMs, LBP, and PCBs to maintain on the installation.

4.2 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Unavoidable adverse effects would occur from the Proposed Action and would be negligible to 

minor. Adverse effects that could not be avoided include siting proposed projects in undeveloped 
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

December 2020 | 4-3

areas of the installation, thereby increasing disturbance of topography and soils and stormwater 

runoff and reducing groundwater infiltration from the added impervious surface. Each of these 

effects is discussed in detail in Sections 3.2 through 3.8. Unavoidable adverse effects would not be 

significant. There would be no unavoidable adverse effects on land use and recreation from the 

Proposed Action.

4.3 Compatibility of the Proposed Action and Alternatives 

with the Objectives of Federal, Regional, State, and 

Local Land Use Plans, Policies, and Controls

Implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in any significant or incompatible land use 

changes on- or off-installation. The Master Plan and its component plans consider the installation’s 

existing conditions and constraints in the siting, design, and timing of projects. The Proposed Action 

would be implemented to comply with applicable federal, regional, state, and local land use 

ordinances. 

4.4 Relationship Between Short-term Uses of the 

Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of 

Long-term Productivity

The Proposed Action would site proposed facilities in accordance with the planning districts, land 

uses categories, and planning constraints outlined in the Master Plan; implement projects to reduce 

non-renewable energy consumption; and establish appropriate natural resources management 

processes. The long-term beneficial effects of the Proposed Action would ensure that the installation 

is able to meet its current and future mission requirements while ensuring energy efficiency and 

sustainability.

4.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resource

The Proposed Action would not involve the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of energy 

resources and human resources. The Proposed Action would result in commitment of land for the 

siting of future proposed facilities. The effects of this commitment would be permanent but not 

significant.

4.6 Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential

The Proposed Action would not involve the direct consumption of energy. The Proposed Action 

indirectly would increase energy consumption from the overall increase in interior space, but it would 

also reduce energy consumption by upgrading and replacing older and outdated buildings with 

modern, energy-efficient, sustainable buildings. The Future Development Plan includes renewable 

energy projects—such as a biomass power plant, microgrid controls, and a utility scale solar 

photovoltaic array—that would help to offset non-renewable energy consumption.
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

4-4 | December 2020

4.7 Natural or Depletable Resource Requirements and 

Conservation Potential

The Proposed Action would require no significant use of natural or depletable resources.
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

December 2020 | 5-1

5 Summary of Potential Environmental Effects

The introduction to Section 3 provides information on which resource areas were selected to be 

analyzed in detail in this EA and the rationale behind each decision. Table 5-1 summarizes the 

potential impacts of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative on the environmental 

resource areas analyzed in detail in Section 3. Implementation of the Proposed Action or No Action 

Alternative would not result in individual or cumulatively significant environmental effects. Therefore, 

preparation of an EIS is not warranted, and issuance of a FONSI would be appropriate.

Table 5-1. Potential Effects of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative

Resource Area Proposed Action Effects

No Action 

Alternative 

Effects

Land Use and 

Recreation

Long-term, moderate, beneficial effects (land use); long-term, 

minor, beneficial effects (recreation) No effects

Noise Long-term, minor, adverse and beneficial effects No effects

Air Quality Short- and long-term, minor, adverse and beneficial effects No effects

Geological 

Resources

No effects (geology); long-term, negligible, adverse effects 

(topography); long-term, minor, adverse and beneficial effects 

(soils); and long-term, minor, adverse effects (farmland and 

geologic hazards)

No effects

Water Resources

Long-term, minor, adverse and beneficial effects (surface 

water); long-term, minor, adverse effects (groundwater); no 

effects (floodplains)

No effects

Biological 

Resources

Long-term, minor, adverse and beneficial effects (vegetation, 

wildlife, and protected species); no effects (wetlands) No effects

Infrastructure and 

Transportation

Long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial effects; long-term, 

minor, adverse effects No effects

Hazardous 

Materials and 

Wastes

Long-term, minor, adverse and beneficial effects No effects
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

5-2 | December 2020

This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

December 2020 | 6-1

6 References

AFCEC 2018 Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC). 2018. Air Emissions Guide for Air Force 

Stationary Sources. Methods for Estimating Emissions of Air Pollutants for 

Stationary Sources at United States Air Force Installations. August 2018.

California 

DOC 2010

California Department of Conservation (California DOC). 2010. 2010 Fault Activity 

Map of California. Available online: 

<https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/App/index.html>. Accessed May 12, 

2020.

California 

DOC 2016

California DOC. 2016. San Joaquin County Important Farmland 2016. Farmland 

Mapping and Monitoring Program. Available online: 

<http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/SanJoaquin.aspx>. Accessed 

May 5, 2020.

California 

DWR 2006

California Department of Water Resources (California DWR). 2006. San Joaquin 

River Hydrologic Regions, San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. Bulletin 118. 

California Department of Water Resources. Available online: 

<https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/GroundwaterManagement/Bulletin-118/Files/2003-BasinDescriptions/5_022_15_TracySubbasin.pdf>. Accessed May 21, 2020.

CARB 2020 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020. Maps of State and Federal Area 

Designations. Available online: 

<https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-areadesignations>. Accessed May 11, 2020.

CBOC 1993 The California Burrowing Owl Consortium (CBOC). 1993. Burrowing Owl Survey 

Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines. April 1993. Available online: 

<https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83842>. Accessed May 11, 

2020.

CDPH 2013 California Department of Public Health (CDPH). 2013. Preventing Work-Related 

Coccidioidomycosis (Valley Fever). Hazard Evaluation System & Information 

Service Fact Sheet. June 2013. Available online: 

<https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DEODC/OHB/HESIS/

CDPH%20Document%20Library/CocciFact.pdf>. Accessed July 30, 2020.

DLA 2009 Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). 2009. Final Asbestos Survey Report and 

Management Plan. Section 7: Summary of Survey Information by Facility. February 

9, 2009.

DLA 2012 DLA. 2012. Final Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, Defense Distribution 

Depot, San Joaquin – Tracy Site. February 2012.

DLA 2013a DLA. 2013. Sustainability Plan for Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin. Final 

Submittal. February 28, 2013.

DLA 2013b DLA. 2013. Biological Resources Survey Report Tracy Site. February 2013.
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

6-2 | December 2020

DLA 2013c DLA. 2013. Net-Zero Energy Study for Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin. 

Final Submittal. March 5, 2013.

DLA 2014a DLA. 2014. Title V Permit Applicability Determination District Facility #N-263.

December 2014.

DLA 2014b DLA. 2014. Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Final. June 2014.

DLA 2014c DLA. 2014. Installation Spill Contingency Plan. Final. October 2014.

DLA 2015a DLA. 2015. Cultural Resources Compliance Documentation. October 2015.

DLA 2015b DLA. 2015. Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan. Draft. Amended 

January 2015. 

DLA 2018a DLA. 2018. Integrated Pest Management Plan for Defense Distribution Depot, San 

Joaquin, California. Updated October 2018. 

DLA 2018b DLA. 2018. Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan for Defense 

Distribution Depot San Joaquin, California. Final. June 2018.

DLA 2018c DLA. 2018. Final Land Use Control Implementation Plan, Defense Logistics 

Agency Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin, Tracy, California. December 

2018.

DLA 2018d DLA. 2018. Environmental Assessment Addressing Upgrade of the Main Gate 

Access Control Point at Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California, and 

Surrounding Area. August 2018.

DLA 2019 DLA. 2019. DLA Disposition Services at San Joaquin: Site Information. Updated 

August 26, 2019. Available online: 

<https://www.dla.mil/DispositionServices/Contact/FindLocation/SanJoaquin/>.

Accessed May 21, 2020.

DLA 2020 DLA. 2020. Master Plan for Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California. 

Final Submittal. January 2020.

FEMA 2020 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2020. Map Service Center. 

Available online: 

<https://p4.msc.fema.gov/arcgis/rest/directories/arcgisjobs/nfhl_print/nfhlprinttool2_

gpserver/j4385763784a2414699253a106e98689e/scratch/FIRMETTE_b8cdd700-

93db-11ea-bc9d-0050569c5fb0.pdf>. Accessed May 15, 2020.

NRCS 2019 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2019. Web Soil Survey. 

Available online: <http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/>. Accessed May 12, 2020.

Paslak 2020 Paslak, James. 2020. Personal communication between Mr. James Paslak 

(Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin) and Ms. Isha Alexander (HDR) 

regarding the observance of burrowing owls on the Tracy Annex. May 14, 2020.

Planert and 

Williams 1995

Planert, Michael and John S. Williams. 1995. Groundwater Atlas of the United 

States, California and Nevada. HA-730-B. U.S. Geological Survey. Available 

online: <http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_b/B-text3.html>. Accessed May 11, 

2020.
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

December 2020 | 6-3

San Joaquin 

County 2009

San Joaquin County. 2009. San Joaquin County Flood Zone Changes. Final FEMA 

DFIRM Data. April 17, 2009. Available online: 

<http://www.sjmap.org/floodzoneviewer/Viewer.asp >. Accessed May 12, 2020.

San Joaquin 

County 2016

San Joaquin County. 2016. Zones in San Joaquin County. Available online: 

<https://www.sjgov.org/commdev/cgibin/cdyn.exe?grp=neighpresv&htm=zonedef>. Accessed May 13, 2020.

San Joaquin 

County 2017

San Joaquin County. 2017. San Joaquin Countywide General Plan 2035. Available 

online: <http://www.sjgov.org/commdev/cgibin/cdyn.exe/file/Planning/General%20Plan%202035/GENERAL%20PLAN%20203

5.pdf>. Accessed May 13, 2020.

San Joaquin 

County 2020

San Joaquin County. 2020. San Joaquin County District Viewer. Available online: 

<http://www.sjmap.org/DistrictViewerV2/>. Accessed May 13, 2020.

San Joaquin 

RTD 2020

San Joaquin Region Transit District (San Joaquin RTD). 2020. Weekday System 

Map. January 26, 2020. Available online: <http://sanjoaquinrtd.com/wpcontent/uploads/2020/04/20200126-Weekday-Sys_Map_24x36.pdf>. Accessed 

May 18, 2020. 

Scheirer and 

Magoon 2007

Scheirer, A.H. and L.B. Magoon, ed. 2007. Petroleum Systems and Geologic 

Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California. Chapter 

5, Age, Distribution, and Stratigraphic Relationship of Rock Units in the San 

Joaquin Basin Province, California. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 

1713. 

SCS 1992 Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1992. Soil Survey of San Joaquin County, 

California. 

SJC PHS 

2020

San Joaquin County Public Health Services (SJC PHS). 2020. Cocci 

(Coccidioidomycosis) Valley Fever. Available online: <http://www.sjcphs.org/

documents/Cocci%20Pamphlet%20FINAL.pdf>. Accessed July 30, 2020.

USDA 2018 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2018. Capay Series. Available online: 

<https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/C/CAPAY.html>. Accessed May 

14, 2020.

USEPA 1993 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1993. EPA Map of Radon Zones.

Available online: <https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-

07/documents/zonemapcolor.pdf>. Accessed June 30, 2020.

USEPA 2009 USEPA. 2009. Technical Guidance on Implementing the Stormwater Runoff 

Requirements for Federal Projects under Section 438 of the Energy Independence 

and Security Act. Available online: 

<https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-

08/documents/epa_swm_guidance.pdf>. Accessed May 12, 2020.

USEPA 2020a USEPA. 2020. California Nonattainment/Maintenance Status for Each County by 

Year for All Criteria Pollutants. Last updated April 30, 2020. Available online: 

<https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/anayo_ca.html>. Accessed May 11, 

2020.
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

6-4 | December 2020

USEPA 2020b USEPA. 2020. Enforcement and Compliance History Online. Detailed Facility 

Report for Defense Distribution San Joaquin Tracy. Last updated June 11, 2020. 

Available online: <https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110002332985>.

Accessed June 30, 2020.

USFWS 2020 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020. Information for Planning and 

Consultation (IPaC) Resource List. Available online: <https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/>. 

Accessed August 25, 2020.

USGCRP 

2018

U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). 2018. Impacts, Risks, and 

Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II. 

[Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. 

Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, 

Washington, DC, USA, 1515 pp. doi: 10.7930/NCA4.2018. 

USGS 1954 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1954. Tracy, California NW/4 Carbona 15’ 

Quadrangle.

USGS 1983 USGS. 1983. Geology of the Tulare Formation and Other Continental Deposits, 

Kettleman City Area, San Joaquin Valley, California, with a Section on GroundWater Management Considerations and Use of Texture Maps. Available online: 

<https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/1983/4000/report.pdf>. Accessed May 14, 2020.

USGS 2019 USGS. 2019. “Peak horizontal acceleration with a 2% probability of exceedance in 

50 years NEHRP site class B/C.” 2018 National Seismic Hazard Model for the 

conterminous United States. Published December 5, 2019. Available online: 

<https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/5d5597d0e4b01d82ce8e3ff1>. 

Accessed May 14, 2020.

USGS 2020a USGS. 2020. Geologic units in San Joaquin country, California. Available online: 

<https://mrdata.usgs.gov/geology/state/fips-unit.php?code=f06077>. Accessed 

May 14, 2020.

USGS 2020b USGS. 2020. National Geologic Map Database. Geologic Unit: Tulare. Available 

online: <http://https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/Units/Tulare_12143.html>. Accessed 

May 14, 2020.
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

December 2020 | 7-1

7 Preparers

This EA has been prepared by HDR, Inc. under the direction of DLA personnel.
Environmental Assessment Addressing the Master Plan Update

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California

7-2 | December 2020

This page intentionally left blank.
A

Appendix A. Integrated 

Pest Management Plan 

and Integrated Natural 

Resources 

Management Plan 

Projects
This page intentionally left blank.
A-1 

Table A-1. Integrated Pest Management Plan Projects

Before any pesticides are applied, non-chemical control efforts will be used to the maximum extent 

possible.

When applying pesticides, use of the least toxic product required to achieve the desired control will 

be considered first. The use of “minimum risk pesticides” (i.e., those exempt from Federal 

registration requirements under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Section 

25[b]) in accordance with their label should be promoted.

Use of integrated pest management techniques will be encouraged in all contracts. Pest problems 

threatening the health, safety, or welfare of installation personnel shall receive priority.

Ensure the contractor or full-time equivalent pest control worker is certified.

Ensure contractor or full-time equivalent doing the work reports pesticide usage on DD Form 1532-

1 and maintains this document in a local file, and ensure data are reported through the 

Environmental Office to the DLA Pest Management Consultant on at least a quarterly basis.

When new buildings are planned, provisions are written in the design specifications for the inclusion 

of pre-slab treatment for termite control.

Sensitive areas listed on pesticide labels are considered before pest control operations are 

conducted. Herbicides will not be used to control weeds at the Child Development Center in areas 

where children play, and special care is given when pesticides are applied near the Child 

Development Center. The Pest Management Coordinator periodically evaluates ongoing pest 

control operations to ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act.

Monthly or periodic spraying will be eliminated unless deemed necessary after surveying and 

monitoring pest population levels. 

The lessee of the Tracy Annex is responsible for pest management controls on the leased land to 

include appropriate state certification and reporting of pesticide use.
A-2 

Table A-2. Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan Projects

Complete this version of the INRMP and use it as a beginning point to develop an ecosystem 

management approach to natural resources management. 

As needed, develop a process and schedule for coordinating with agencies to allow for agency 

comment on management plans. 

Foster landscape-scale thinking among installation staff and provide them with appropriate 

training if needed. 

Implement actions, once plans are developed or revised, identified in the INRMP. 

Continue to conduct floristic and fauna surveys at established intervals (every 5 years) to 

determine any changes to the state of federally listed plants/animals on the installation. 

Maintain a list of special status plant and animal species with the potential to occur at Defense 

Distribution Depot San Joaquin. 

If listed species are found, or if species already known on the installation become listed, modify 

the INRMP for adequate management or protection of the species. 

Consider conducting remote sensing (e.g., trail cameras) surveys for the San Joaquin kit fox. 

Coordinate with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to determine whether a reimbursable 

agreement for the surveys could be developed. 

Continue monitoring special status species as described in this INRMP and adapt monitoring 

and management actions as needed. Use monitoring information and other information gleaned 

to guide adaptive management. 

Initiate habitat improvement projects to conserve biodiversity and protect plant and animal 

habitats, as funding is available and when such projects will not adversely affect the military 

mission. 

Periodically review the natural resources management program to ensure that management 

actions do not adversely impact species of concern habitat. 

Implement species-specific and overall conservation and monitoring measures described in this 

INRMP and those developed in future biological opinions. 

Develop special status species identification sheets for distribution to installation personnel. 

Provide information on how to avoid impacting these species. 

Continue use of the established Environmental Review process to identify actions that result in 

adverse effects on special status species or habitats. Coordinate measures with the proponent 

to reduce adverse effects. 

Provide an environmental coordination map, which includes the following information: (1) 

Regulated areas in which activity restrictions are in place, (2) Special status species locations

where pre-planning efforts might be necessary. 

Implement annual breeding season census surveys for burrowing owls throughout the 

installation. 

Implement pre-construction mitigation measures within suitable burrowing owl habitat including: 

pre-activity surveys; passive relocation of burrowing owls from construction zones; mitigating 

impacts to occupied burrows; installing and maintaining artificial burrows; mitigating impacts to 

unoccupied burrows; and mitigating impacts to foraging habitat. 
A-3 

Avoid disturbing occupied burrows during the nesting period (1 February through 31 August) 

and avoid impacting burrows occupied during the non-breeding season by resident burrowing 

owls. Avoid direct destruction of burrows through chaining, disking, cultivation, and urban, 

industrial, or agricultural development. Place visible markers near burrows to ensure that farm 

equipment and other machinery do not collapse burrows. 

Outside of the nesting period (1 February through 31 August), mow areas that support 

borrowing owls to prevent invasive plants from reaching a height of approximately 5 inches. 

Develop and implement worker awareness program to increase the on-site worker’s recognition 

and commitment to burrowing owl protection. Ensure agricultural outlease terms include these 

best management practices (BMPs) for protection of the species and maintenance of habitat as 

compatible with agricultural uses. 

Avoid fumigation of any animal burrows. Do not use treated bait or other means of poisoning 

nuisance animals in areas where burrowing owls are known or suspected to occur (e.g., sites 

observed with nesting owls, foraging habitat). Restrict the use of treated grain to poison 

mammal to bait stations placed in areas outside of burrowing owl habitat, only apply during the 

month of January, and use only when integrated pest management options are not effective 

(e.g., mechanical). Broadcast baiting is not permitted.

Conduct a biological feasibility study to explore the potential for setting aside a portion of the

agricultural annex for burrowing owl habitat. This study should include an assessment of current 

and past inhabited areas on the annex, short and long-term recommendations for managing or 

restoring those areas to suitable habitat conditions, and an analysis of the appropriate size and 

configuration of land that would be biologically meaningful for burrowing owl conservation.

Conduct a logistical and financial feasibility study to determine the potential for setting aside a 

portion of the agricultural annex for burrowing owl habitat conservation (e.g., agricultural lease 

renewal schedules, potential mission impacts, integration with the Installation Master Plan). 

Ensure collaboration with California Department of Fish and Wildlife and USFWS regarding 

burrowing owl habitat management planning during the annual INRMP review. 

In order to facilitate habitat for burrowing owls, proactively manage for the presence of ground 

squirrels when not in conflict with the military mission. 

Conduct Environmental Review for activities that could affect percolation/evaporation ponds.

Plan development activities to avoid native wetland vegetation impacts to the maximum extent 

possible when conducting non-native and excess vegetation removal for pond effectiveness. 

Maintain water quality to protect surface waters and ponds from excessive sediment laden 

runoff. 

Maintain a “no mow” zone around the pond to maintain any native trees, shrubs, and 

herbaceous plants. 

Implement provisions of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to include BMPs, monitoring, 

reporting, and modifying BMPs as needed. 

To the maximum extent feasible, maintain buffers between percolation/evaporation ponds, 

riparian areas, or drainages and construction or other ground-disturbance areas. 

Continue groundwater monitoring and remediation program and continue to prohibit the use of 

shallow groundwater from on-site wells within the contaminated zone. 

Continue to do biotic surveys every 5 years, prior to the INRMP revision, to monitor significant 

changes in wildlife species or populations present on Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin. 
A-4 

Continue documenting nongame species that are incidentally observed during species of 

concern surveys. 

Maintain an updated inventory of plants and animals present on Defense Distribution Depot San 

Joaquin. 

Ensure that the natural resources staff members responsible for wildlife management and 

conservation obtain focused training regarding management of these resources as related to 

conservation on a military installation. 

Conduct surveys of activity sites as needed to determine if migratory bird nests are present and 

active. If necessary, Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin will apply for an appropriate permit 

for intentional take of migratory birds. 

Work with project proponents and Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin directorates to 

develop effective management for minimizing the unintentional take of migratory birds. 

Avoid and minimize impacts on migratory birds in and around the installation as individual 

projects are developed. 

Follow management recommendations in the IPMP to discourage birds from entering or nesting 

on buildings. 

Use state and federal agencies to assist with wildlife management. 

Explore opportunities to conduct research through universities to assist with wildlife 

management. 

Use contractors or other federal or state agencies to assist with fish and wildlife management. 

Explore collaborative opportunities with local Boy Scout troops, Girl Scout troops, and other 

community organizations to complete specific tasks to benefit natural resources. 

The USFWS has the potential to provide management assistance through a reimbursable 

agreement. 

Monitor construction projects and coordinate with Roads and Grounds if heavy equipment work 

is needed. 

Survey areas on post where soil erosion and compaction might occur from construction to 

ensure that BMPs within the erosion and sedimentation plan for that construction are 

implemented and effective. 

Implement recommendations from erosion survey. Reseed with predominantly native seed 

mixtures or restore as needed. Use native pollinator species to the greatest extent possible per 

the Presidential Memorandum that directs DoD to use pollinator-friendly native landscaping and 

minimize use of pesticides harmful to pollinators. 

Work with project proponents to identify potential erosion sites. Identify additional sites for land 

rehabilitation planning. 

Require all earth-moving activities (including contractor operations) to comply with the erosion 

and sedimentation plan for that construction project. 

Focus on the species and communities desired in place of the “weed” species, rather than on 

simply eliminating undesirable species. The species and communities desired will depend upon 

the management goals for a specific area. Use native pollinator species to the greatest extent 

possible per the Presidential Memorandum that directs DoD to use pollinator-friendly native 

landscaping and minimize use of pesticides harmful to pollinators. 
A-5 

Establish BMPs such as seed testing with the Rules for Testing Seed, published by the 

Association of Official Seed Analysts during landscaping projects to prevent new species from 

becoming established. 

Include language in contracts with the construction companies to prevent the spread of invasive 

plant species on the installation. 

Ensure compliance with environmental legislation, regulations, and guidelines. 

Direct installation staff to cease feeding feral cats and educate them on the potential impacts to 

migratory bird populations. Coordinate with local animal control offices to remove feral cats from 

the installation. 

Implement pest management controls from the IPMP and other pest-related guidance and 

plans. 

Update the existing IPMP to ensure that the plan reflects changes in populations and current 

management issues. 

During grounds maintenance activities, identify areas where invasive species occur and develop 

specific management actions to target the populations of these species. 

Use integrated pest management methods that include non-chemical control to reduce the 

amount of herbicide applied on the installation in accordance with the DoD Pest Management 

Measures of Merit and the Presidential Memorandum, Creating a Federal Strategy to Promote 

the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators (June 2014). 

For landscaping, use plants that are native to the local region as much as possible, or those that 

are not known to be invasive. Use native pollinator species to the greatest extent possible per 

the Presidential Memorandum that directs DoD to use pollinator-friendly native landscaping and 

minimize use of pesticides harmful to pollinators. 

If necessary, coordinate with state and local regulators to obtain appropriate permits for 

nonnative and nuisance plant species eradication in wetland areas. 

Provide lessees with a copy of the INRMP and conduct periodic checks of the lease activity to 

ensure compliance with the INRMP. 

Collect, review, and submit pesticide/herbicide application data from the lessee as required by 

the IPMP and Army regulations. 

Create a public access protocol, if appropriate. 

Improve the general natural resources program knowledge of all persons associated with 

Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin, particularly those who come into regular contact with 

interested persons. 

Use newspapers, the Web site, and special displays to inform the surrounding community of 

matters important to Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin natural resources program. 

Participate in Earth Day and other organized events, as appropriate, and evaluate other special 

events for their usefulness in promoting a stewardship image and conservation commitment. 

Engage local community groups and educate the local community, installation personnel, and 

tenants about the installation natural resources program. 

Encourage natural resources staff to join professional societies and their state/regional chapters 

and to be active in them. 
A-6 

Ensure that designated natural resources personnel obtain the one-time or occasional refresher 

training needed to fulfill job requirements (e.g., Geographic Information System user training, 

NEPA training, endangered species documentation/consultation training). 

Evaluate other conferences/workshops, such as the National Military Fish and Wildlife 

Association annual workshop, for their usefulness as training tools and send personnel to those 

most justified, based on current training needs and those most related to Defense Distribution 

Depot San Joaquin activities.
B

Appendix B. Summary 

of Environmental 

Contamination Sites
This page intentionally left blank.
B-1 

Table B-1. Summary of Environmental Contamination Sites on Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin

Site Name Site Description Applicable Land Use Controls (LUCs)

Operable Unit 1 and 

Northwest Corner 

Operable Unit 

Groundwater 

Plumes

Operable Unit 1 and Northwest Corner Operable Unit are 

areas of contaminated groundwater. The contamination 

associated with Operable Unit 1 resulted from past waste 

disposal practices at several locations on the Tracy Site.

As such, this site is comprised of multiple groundwater 

plumes, and some of these plumes extend beyond the 

Tracy Site onto the Tracy Annex. The contaminants of 

concern (COCs) for Operable Unit 1 are trichloroethylene 

(TCE), tetrachloroethylene (PCE), and dieldrin. Dieldrin is

the COC associated with Northwest Corner Operable Unit

and resulted from the injection of dieldrin-contaminated 

groundwater during the treatment of groundwater for 

Operable Unit 1. Two groundwater extract-and-treat 

systems were installed to address the TCE and PCE 

contamination at Operable Unit 1 and four liquid granular 

activated carbon well head treatment systems were 

installed to address the dieldrin contamination at both sites. 

The distribution of contaminates in groundwater is 

monitored each year. 

• Prevent domestic use of contaminated 

groundwater.

• Protect infrastructure associated with groundwater 

monitoring, extraction, treatment, and disposal.

• Prohibit construction of water supply wells on the 

northwest corner of the Tracy Site.

• Post signs indicating restrictions on groundwater 

use and well construction.

• Implement notification procedures for construction 

activities or land use changes.

• Maintain administrative controls.

• Perform annual reviews to ensure compliance with 

controls and to correct any deficiencies in the 

notification procedure.

• Follow defined procedures in the event of a change 

in land use.
B-2 

Site Name Site Description Applicable Land Use Controls (LUCs)

Area 1, Building 237 Area 1 is a region where soil and groundwater 

contamination resulted from past activities including 

operation of an industrial waste pipeline, cleaning asphalt 

pouring tools and equipment, and solvent storage. COCs 

are TCE, PCE, and pesticides. Soil vapor extraction was 

performed to address groundwater, and limited soil 

removal was performed to remove the highest 

concentrations of pesticide contamination. Residual 

contaminants pose a vapor intrusion threat to Building 237 

and a health risk to construction workers.

• Post signs indicating areas of restricted land use 

and listing contact information for the approval of

construction or land use changes. 

• Review proposed construction projects for 

compatibility and prohibit housing, child-care 

facilities, playgrounds, and schools.

• Implement notification procedures for construction 

or land use changes.

• Follow procedures for a change in land use or 

property lease/transfer.

• Perform annual monitoring and correct any 

deficiencies observed.

• Retain the existing ground cover.

• Construct future buildings to mitigate the migration 

of volatile contaminants from soil vapor to indoor 

air.

• Restore controls when construction activities are 

complete.
B-3 

Site Name Site Description Applicable Land Use Controls (LUCs)

Solid Waste 

Management Unit 

(SWMU) 1/Area 2

SWMU 1 was a former sewage lagoon that received 

sanitary sewer effluent until 1942. The lagoon was 

backfilled in 1944, and a drum storage area (Area 2) was 

constructed on site in 1957. The drum storage area was 

operational until 1984 and held unknown chemicals. Soil 

and groundwater contamination resulted from these past 

operations. COCs are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

(PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), TCE, and PCE. 

Soil vapor extraction has been performed, and the residual 

contaminants represent a human health risk if residential 

use is permitted. Groundwater contamination is being 

addressed under Operable Unit 1.

• Post signs indicating areas of restricted land use 

and listing contact information for the approval of 

construction or land use changes. 

• Review proposed construction projects for 

compatibility and prohibit housing, child-care 

facilities, playgrounds, and schools.

• Implement notification procedures for construction 

or land use changes.

• Follow procedures for a change in land use or 

property lease/transfer.

• Perform annual monitoring and correct any 

deficiencies observed.

• Retain the existing ground cover.

• Construct future buildings to mitigate the migration 

of volatile contaminants from soil vapor to indoor 

air.

• Restore controls when construction activities are 

complete. 
B-4 

Site Name Site Description Applicable Land Use Controls (LUCs)

Area 3 Area 3 was a former drum storage area where leaking 

drums contaminated soil and groundwater. COCs are 

semi-volatile organic compounds (VOCs), TCE, and PCE. 

Soil vapor extraction has been performed, and the residual 

contaminants pose a vapor intrusion threat to buildings. 

Groundwater contamination is being addressed under 

Operable Unit 1.

• Post signs indicating areas of restricted land use 

and listing contact information for the approval of 

construction or land use changes. 

• Review proposed construction projects for 

compatibility and prohibit housing, child-care 

facilities, playgrounds, and schools. 

• Implement notification procedures for construction 

or land use changes.

• Follow procedures for a change in land use or 

property lease/transfer.

• Perform annual monitoring and correct any 

deficiencies observed.

• Retain the existing ground cover.

• Construct future buildings to mitigate the migration 

of volatile contaminants from soil vapor to indoor 

air.

• Restore controls when construction activities are 

complete.
B-5 

Site Name Site Description Applicable Land Use Controls (LUCs)

SWMUs 2 and 3 SWMU 2 is two unlined, active sewage lagoons that 

receive treated sanitary sewer effluent. They have been 

operational since 1942 and previously received effluent 

from the motor pool wash rack. SWMU 3 is two lined 

industrial waste lagoons within the larger lagoons of 

SWMU 2. These lagoons were constructed in the 1970s 

and received wastewater from an industrial waste pipeline 

that originated from facilities that supported repackaging 

petroleum products and paint-stripping, degreasing, and 

steam-cleaning operations. Overflows from the lagoons of 

SWMU 3 into those of SWMU 2 were common during the 

1970s. Pesticides were released into these lagoons on 

several occasions during the late 1970s. Soils, sediments, 

and surface water were contaminated, and COCs include 

semi-VOCs, aluminum, beryllium, and pesticides. Limited 

soil removal was performed. Residual soil contamination 

represents a human health risk and is still above industrial 

remediation goals. Contamination continues to represent a 

potential threat to groundwater quality.

• Post signs indicating areas of restricted land use 

and listing contact information for the approval of 

construction or land use changes. 

• Review proposed construction projects for 

compatibility and prohibit housing, child-care 

facilities, playgrounds, and schools. 

• Implement notification procedures for construction 

or land use changes.

• Follow procedures for a change in land use or 

property lease/transfer.

• Perform annual monitoring and correct any 

deficiencies observed.

• Restore controls when construction activities are 

complete.
B-6 

Site Name Site Description Applicable Land Use Controls (LUCs)

SWMU 4 SWMU 4 is the installation’s evaporation/percolation 

holding reservoir for stormwater. The reservoir has been in 

operation since 1971 and formerly received rinse water 

from paint-stripping, degreasing, and steam-cleaning 

operations. The area was used for open storage prior to 

1952, and a manganese ore stockpile was nearby from 

1957 to 1968. Sediment within the reservoir is 

contaminated, and the contamination represents a human 

health risk if residential use is permitted. COCs include 

aluminum, arsenic, lead, manganese, PAHs, PCBs, and 

pesticides. Impacts to groundwater quality are possible but 

unlikely. 

• Post signs indicating areas of restricted land use 

and listing contact information for the approval of 

construction or land use changes. 

• Review proposed construction projects for 

compatibility and prohibit housing, child-care 

facilities, playgrounds, and schools.

• Implement notification procedures for construction 

or land use changes.

• Follow procedures for a change in land use or 

property lease/transfer.

• Perform annual monitoring and correct any 

deficiencies observed.

• Restore controls when construction activities are 

complete.

SWMU 6 SWMU 6 is a former 250-gallon concrete sump and 

underground storage tank. Wastewater from repackaging 

petroleum products was discharged into the sump from 

1968 to 1977. The sump was removed in 1988. Soil 

contamination was identified, and COCs included PAHs, 

beryllium, PCBs, and pesticides. The pesticides 

contamination remains above industrial remediation goals. 

Groundwater contamination has occurred and is being 

addressed under Operable Unit 1.

• Post signs indicating areas of restricted land use 

and listing contact information for the approval of 

construction or land use changes. 

• Review proposed construction projects for 

compatibility and prohibit housing, child-care 

facilities, playgrounds, and schools.

• Implement notification procedures for construction 

or land use changes.

• Follow procedures for a change in land use or 

property lease/transfer.

• Perform annual monitoring and correct any 

deficiencies observed.

• Restore controls when construction activities are 

complete.
B-7 

Site Name Site Description Applicable Land Use Controls (LUCs)

SWMU 7, North and 

South Areas

SWMU 7 is seven pits that are now partially or completely 

beneath Buildings 15, 19, and 21. These pits were used 

from 1942 to 1954 for the disposal of medical supplies, 

mercury, phosphates, narcotics, radiological supplies, and 

electron tubes. Other substances may have been buried or 

burned inside of the pits. Soil and groundwater have been 

impacted by VOCs, semi-VOCs, PAHs, and pesticides. Soil 

contamination represents a human health risk, and 

groundwater quality has been impacted.

• Post signs indicating areas of restricted land use 

and listing contact information for the approval of 

construction or land use changes. 

• Review proposed construction projects for 

compatibility and prohibit housing, child-care 

facilities, playgrounds, and schools.

• Implement notification procedures for construction 

or land use changes.

• Follow procedures for a change in land use or 

property lease/transfer.

• Perform annual monitoring and correct any 

deficiencies observed.

• Retain the existing ground cover.

• Restore controls when construction activities are 

complete.
B-8 

Site Name Site Description Applicable Land Use Controls (LUCs)

SWMU 20 SWMU 20 addresses Building 10, which was constructed 

in 1950 and supported several cleaning facilities until 1974. 

Building 10 housed a 500-gallon aboveground storage tank 

that held solvent for a degreasing unit. A 2,000-gallon, fuel 

oil underground storage tank was nearby. Soil and 

groundwater contamination was identified, and COCs 

include aluminum, PAHs, PCBs, TCE, and pesticides. Soil 

vapor extraction has been performed, and the residual 

contaminants pose a vapor intrusion threat to buildings. 

Groundwater contamination is being addressed under 

Operable Unit 1.

• Post signs indicating areas of restricted land use 

and listing contact information for the approval of 

construction or land use changes. 

• Review proposed construction projects for 

compatibility and prohibit housing, child-care 

facilities, playgrounds, and schools.

• Implement notification procedures for construction 

or land use changes.

• Follow procedures for a change in land use or 

property lease/transfer.

• Perform annual monitoring and correct any 

deficiencies observed.

• Retain the existing ground cover.

• Construct future buildings to mitigate the migration 

of volatile contaminants from soil vapor to indoor 

air.

• Restore controls when construction activities are 

complete.
B-9 

Site Name Site Description Applicable Land Use Controls (LUCs)

SWMU 24 SWMU 24 is a former 500-gallon underground storage tank 

that held petroleum and hazardous wastes at Building 247 

between 1961 and 1988. Pinholes were observed in the 

bottom of the tank during its removal. Soil contamination 

was identified, and COCs include acetone, aluminum, 

manganese, PCBs, and PAHs. Bioventing has been 

performed, and the residual contaminants still represent a 

human health risk for residential use. Groundwater has not 

been impacted, but soil contamination poses a future threat 

to groundwater.

• Post signs indicating areas of restricted land use 

and listing contact information for the approval of 

construction or land use changes. 

• Review proposed construction projects for 

compatibility and prohibit housing, child-care 

facilities, playgrounds, and schools.

• Implement notification procedures for construction 

or land use changes.

• Follow procedures for a change in land use or 

property lease/transfer.

• Perform annual monitoring and correct any 

deficiencies observed.

• Restore controls when construction activities are 

complete.

SWMU 33 SWMU 33 is an industrial waste pipeline that was 

constructed in 1972 and buried approximately 2 to 4 feet 

below the ground surface. There are two branches to the 

pipeline that are approximately 1,200 feet in length. Wastes 

from various shops on the installation were routed through 

the pipeline to SWMU 3 for disposal. Soil contamination 

was identified along the route of the pipeline, and the 

COCs include PAHs and pesticides. Contaminated soils 

were excavated, and pavement and compacted gravel 

were placed over the pipeline to minimize stormwater 

infiltration. Groundwater was impacted, and contamination 

is being addressed under Operable Unit 1.

• Post signs indicating areas of restricted land use 

and listing contact information for the approval of 

construction or land use changes. 

• Review proposed construction projects for 

compatibility and prohibit housing, child-care 

facilities, playgrounds, and schools.

• Implement notification procedures for construction 

or land use changes.

• Follow procedures for a change in land use or 

property lease/transfer.

• Perform annual monitoring and correct any 

deficiencies observed.

• Retain the existing ground cover.

• Restore controls when construction activities are 

complete.
B-10

Site Name Site Description Applicable Land Use Controls (LUCs)

Site 72 Site 72 is an area of pesticide contaminated soil that was

identified during construction of stormwater drainage 

infrastructure. The source of the contamination has not 

been identified. Contaminated soils were excavated but 

residual contaminants still represent a human health risk 

for residential use. No groundwater contamination has 

been identified.

• Post signs indicating areas of restricted land use 

and listing contact information for the approval of 

construction or land use changes. 

• Review proposed construction projects for 

compatibility and prohibit housing, child-care 

facilities, playgrounds, and schools.

• Implement notification procedures for construction 

or land use changes.

• Follow procedures for a change in land use or 

property lease/transfer.

• Perform annual monitoring and correct any 

deficiencies observed.

• Restore controls when construction activities are 

complete.

Building 30 Drum 

Storage Area

Solvents, metal-containing wastes, and petroleum wastes 

were formerly stored in drums at Building 30. Releases 

from these drums contaminated soils. Groundwater was 

not impacted, but the soil contamination poses a future 

threat to groundwater.

• Post signs indicating areas of restricted land use 

and listing contact information for the approval of 

construction or land use changes. 

• Review proposed construction projects for 

compatibility.

• Implement notification procedures for construction 

or land use changes.

• Follow procedures for a change in land use or 

property lease/transfer.

• Perform annual monitoring and correct any 

deficiencies observed.

• Retain the existing ground cover.

• Restore controls when construction activities are 

complete.
B-11

Site Name Site Description Applicable Land Use Controls (LUCs)

Northern Depot 

Soils Area

The Northern Depot Soils Area was formerly used for metal 

storage. From the late 1940s until the 1980s, ferrous 

chromium ore and manganese ore were stored on the site. 

Lead ballast was stored on the site during the 1980s. Soil 

has been contaminated, and the COCs are arsenic and 

manganese. Gravel has been placed over the site to cover 

the soil. Groundwater has not been impacted, and the soil 

contamination does not represent a threat to groundwater.

• Post signs indicating areas of restricted land use 

and listing contact information for the approval of 

construction or land use changes. 

• Review proposed construction projects for 

compatibility and prohibit housing, child-care 

facilities, playgrounds, and schools.

• Implement notification procedures for construction 

or land use changes.

• Follow procedures for a change in land use or 

property lease/transfer.

• Perform annual monitoring and correct any 

deficiencies observed.

• Retain the existing ground cover.

• Restore controls when construction activities are 

complete.

Eastern Depot Soils 

Area

The Eastern Depot Soils Area is a large area formerly used 

for grader training exercises where soil contamination has 

been identified. The source of the contamination has not 

been determined. COCs are aluminum, arsenic, PCBs, and 

pesticides. The soil contamination represents a human 

health risk for residential use. Groundwater contamination 

has not occurred. 

• Post signs indicating areas of restricted land use 

and listing contact information for the approval of 

construction or land use changes. 

• Review proposed construction projects for 

compatibility and prohibit housing, child-care 

facilities, playgrounds, and schools.

• Implement notification procedures for construction 

or land use changes.

• Follow procedures for a change in land use or 

property lease/transfer.

• Perform annual monitoring and correct any 

deficiencies observed.

• Restore controls when construction activities are 

complete.
B-12

Site Name Site Description Applicable Land Use Controls (LUCs)

Southern Depot 

Soils Area

The Southern Depot Soil Area is a large area formerly used 

for grader training exercises where soil contamination has 

been identified. The source of the contamination has not 

been determined. The COC is pesticides. The soil 

contamination represents a human health risk for

residential use. Groundwater contamination has not 

occurred.

• Post signs indicating areas of restricted land use 

and listing contact information for the approval of 

construction or land use changes. 

• Review proposed construction projects for 

compatibility and prohibit housing, child-care 

facilities, playgrounds, and schools.

• Implement notification procedures for construction 

or land use changes.

• Follow procedures for a change in land use or 

property lease/transfer.

• Perform annual monitoring and correct any 

deficiencies observed.

• Restore controls when construction activities are 

complete.

Sources: DLA 2018c, DLA 2020

Key: LUC = land use control; COC = contaminant of concern; TCE = trichloroethylene; PCE = tetrachloroethylene; SWMU = Solid Waste Management Unit; 

PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon; PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl; VOC = volatile organic compound.