ENVIRONMENTAL 

ASSESSMENT 

ADDRESSING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 

REAL PROPERTY MASTER PLAN AT 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, 

SAN JOAQUIN 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

ACM asbestos-containing material 

ACP access control point 

AMHS automated material handling system 

AT/FP anti-terrorism/force protection 

BMP best management practice 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

dB decibel 

DLA Defense Logistics Agency 

DLAR Defense Logistics Agency 

Regulation 

DOD Department of Defense 

EA Environmental Assessment 

ECM energy conservation measure 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EISA Energy Independence and Security 

Act 

EO Executive Order 

FEDS Facility Energy Decision System 

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 

ft2

 square feet 

FY fiscal year 

GHG greenhouse gas 

HCP Hearing Conservation Program 

HVAC heating, ventilation, and air 

conditioning 

INRMP Integrated Natural Resources 

Management Plan 

IPMP Integrated Pest Management Plan 

IRP Installation Restoration Program 

kW kilowatt 

kWh kilowatt hour 

LBP lead-based paint 

LEED Leadership in Energy and 

Environmental Design 

LID low-impact development 

LUC land use control 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

MHE material-handling equipment 

MHS material-handling system 

MILCON military construction 

MMBtu million British thermal units 

MMBtu/yr million British thermal units per 

year 

MW megawatt 

MWh megawatt hour 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NZE Net-Zero Energy 

O&M operations and maintenance 

O3 ozone 

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl 

pCi/L picoCuries per liter 

PM2.5 particulate matter equal to or less 

than 2.5 microns in diameter 

PM10 particulate matter equal to or less 

than 10 microns in diameter 

RPMP Real Property Master Plan 

SP Sustainability Plan 

SRM sustainment, restoration, and 

modernization 

SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit 

SWRCB State Water Resources Control 

Board 

TCE trichloroethylene 

U.S.C. United States Code 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 

WWTP wastewater treatment plant 
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ADDRESSING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 

REAL PROPERTY MASTER PLAN AT DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN 

Responsible Agency: Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). 

Affected Location: Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin. 

Report Designation: Environmental Assessment. 

Abstract: The DLA proposes to implement the Real Property Master Plan (RPMP) and its component 

plans for Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin. The RPMP provides the direction for future 

development of the installation over the next 20 years and identifies a series of building, infrastructure, 

and energy projects that would ensure the installation is able to meet its current and future logistics and 

warehousing mission requirements in a sustainable and environmentally conscious manner. 

Implementing the projects in the RPMP would improve mission capability and installation efficiency by 

siting and designing new modern, energy-efficient, sustainable buildings and infrastructure to supplement 

existing facilities (and in the future replace outdated facilities) and by upgrading existing buildings and 

infrastructure to address life, safety, security, and mission deficiencies. The proposed projects include the 

construction of 2,170,100 square feet (ft2

) of new buildings and the demolition of 657,822 ft2 of existing 

buildings. Additionally, the proposed projects include renewable energy and utility projects; 

improvements to buildings, roads and pavements, and other infrastructure; and implementation of 

measures to reduce consumption of energy and water and generation of waste. All projects would be 

sited to maximize functionality and encourage consolidation and reuse or redevelopment, and would be 

designed to incorporate net-zero energy (NZE) and other sustainable measures. 

Component plans of the RPMP include the NZE Study, Sustainability Plan (SP), and Integrated Pest 

Management Plan (IPMP) for the installation. The NZE Study balances the installation’s future energy 

demand from buildings, industrial processes, fleet vehicles, and equipment with onsite and offsite 

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 annual plan for its 

pest management program. Implementation of the NZE Study, SP, and IPMP would enable the 

installation to reduce energy and fossil fuel use, increase alternative fuel use, achieve an NZE footprint, 

meet or exceed relevant Federal sustainability mandates, practice sound natural resources stewardship, 

comply with environmental policies and regulations, and reduce reliance on pesticides while reducing real 

property damage and maintenance costs. 

Under the No Action Alternative, DLA would not implement the RPMP or its component plans. In 

general, implementation of the No Action Alternative would require that the DLA continue to use existing 

undersized and inefficient facilities and abandon the proposed facility expansion, infrastructure 

enhancement, sustainability improvement, and pest management actions of the RPMP and its component 

plans, which would hamper the ability of the installation to meet its current and future mission 

requirements. The No Action Alternative would not meet the purpose of and need for the Proposed 

Action. 
This page intentionally left blank. 
i 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .................................................... INSIDE FRONT COVER 

ABSTRACT 

1.0 PROPOSED ACTION PURPOSE AND NEED ................................................................. 1

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

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

1.3 Scope of the Analysis ............................................................................................ 1

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

1.4.1 National Environmental Policy Act .......................................................... 3

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

1.5 Agency Coordination and Public Involvement ....................................................... 3

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTION ........................................ 5

2.1 Proposed Action .................................................................................................... 5

2.1.1 Real Property Master Plan ...................................................................... 5

2.1.2 Net-Zero Energy Study ......................................................................... 11

2.1.3 Sustainability Plan ................................................................................ 11

2.1.4 Integrated Pest Management Plan ....................................................... 11

2.2 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................... 12

2.3 Alternatives Considered for the Proposed Action ................................................ 12

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................. 13

3.1 Land Use and Recreation .................................................................................... 13

3.1.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................... 13

3.1.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................................. 14

3.2 Noise ................................................................................................................... 15

3.2.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................... 15

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................................. 15

3.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................ 16

3.3.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................... 16

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................................. 16

3.4 Geological Resources ......................................................................................... 17

3.4.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................... 17

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................................. 18

3.5 Water Resources ................................................................................................. 19

3.5.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................... 19

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................................. 19

3.6 Biological Resources ........................................................................................... 20

3.6.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................... 20

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................................. 21

3.7 Transportation and Infrastructure ........................................................................ 22
ii 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

3.7.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................... 22

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................................. 24

3.8 Hazardous Materials and Wastes........................................................................ 25

3.8.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................... 25

3.8.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................................. 26

4.0 CUMULATIVE AND OTHER EFFECTS ......................................................................... 29

4.1 Cumulative Effects .............................................................................................. 29

4.2 Unavoidable Adverse Effects .............................................................................. 30

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

Federal, Regional, State, and Local Land Use Plans, Policies, and Controls ..... 30

4.4 Relationship Between Short-term Uses of Man’s Environment and 

Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity ................................. 30

4.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources .................................... 30

4.6 Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential .............................................. 30

4.7 Natural or Depletable Resource Requirements and Conservation Potential ....... 30

5.0 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 31

6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 33

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................... 37

FIGURES 

1.1 Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin and Vicinity ...................................................... 2

2.1 MILCON Projects and Select SRM and Energy Projects in the Future 

Development Plan ............................................................................................................. 9

TABLES 

2.1 MILCON Projects in the Future Development Plan ........................................................... 7

2.2 SRM Projects in the Future Development Plan ................................................................. 8

5.1 Potential Impacts of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative .............................. 31

APPENDICES 

A. Proposed Projects in Component Plans

B. Appendix I of the Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin Real Property Master Plan 

(Redacted)
1 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

1.0 PROPOSED ACTION PURPOSE AND NEED 

1.1 Introduction 

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin was formerly responsible for coordination of the tenants and 

installation-level support at the Sharpe Site, located 12 miles north of the Tracy Site and Tracy Annex in 

Lathrop, California. However, as of September 30, 2013, Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin 

phased out Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) operations at the Sharpe Site, and handed over command 

and control to the property owner, the U.S. Army. All DLA operations that occurred on the Sharpe Site 

have been transitioned to the Tracy Site (DLA 2013a). 

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin is a DLA installation in Tracy, California, approximately 

20 miles south of Stockton (see Figure 1.1). It consists of approximately 908 acres of land on two 

adjacent sites (Tracy Site and Tracy Annex) with 62 buildings and 12 improved open storage lots. The 

448-acre Tracy Site is developed with warehouses and administrative and installation maintenance and 

support areas, while the 460-acre Tracy Annex is leased for agricultural use. The installation employs 

approximately 1,375 military and civilian personnel (DLA 2013a). 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses DLA’s proposal to implement the installation’s Real 

Property Master Plan (RPMP) and its component plans, which include the Net-Zero Energy (NZE) Study, 

Sustainability Plan (SP), and Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPMP). All of the component plans 

affect the RPMP; however, the NZE Study and SP are the primary drivers of the plan. The RPMP 

provides the direction for future development of the installation over the next 20 years, and identifies a 

series of building, infrastructure, and energy projects that would ensure that the installation is able to meet 

its current and future logistics and warehousing mission requirements in a sustainable and 

environmentally conscious manner. The RPMP includes a Future Development Plan and Capital 

Investment Strategy. 

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

and alternatives, including the No Action Alternative. It 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 [CFR] Parts 1500–1508); U.S. Department of 

Defense (DOD) Directive 6050.1, Environmental Considerations in DOD Actions; DLA Regulation 

(DLAR) 1000.22, Environmental Considerations in Defense Logistics Agency Actions; and other 

applicable DLA issuances (e.g., regulations, directives, memorandums, instructions). 

1.2 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action 

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to implement Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin’s RPMP 

and its component plans to establish a foundation that provides direction for future development of the 

facilities, infrastructure, land use, and environmental conditions at the installation. The Proposed Action 

is needed to ensure that the installation is able to meet its current and future mission logistics and 

warehousing requirements while ensuring the energy efficiency and sustainability of the installation. 

1.3 Scope of the Analysis 

The scope of the analysis includes the range of actions, alternatives, and potential impacts to be 

considered. The Proposed Action and alternatives considered in this EA are presented in Section 2. In 

accordance with CEQ regulations, the No Action Alternative has been analyzed to provide the baseline 

against which the potential environmental impacts of implementing the action alternatives can be 

compared. 
2 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Figure 1.1 Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin and Vicinity 
3 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

This EA analyzes the potential impacts of implementing the RPMP and its component plans, which 

would 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. 

Environmental impacts associated with the construction, demolition, and operational activities of the 

individual projects in the RPMP and its component plans will be addressed in separate NEPA 

documentation as those projects are further defined. Additionally, this EA does not address personnellevel changes due to mission changes or installation consolidation (i.e., transfer of personnel from the 

Sharpe Site to the Tracy Site). The relinquishment of the permit for the use and occupancy of the Sharpe 

Site was analyzed under a previous NEPA document. 

1.4 Summary of Key Environmental Compliance Requirements 

1.4.1 National Environmental Policy Act 

The NEPA, 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 4321 et seq., was signed into law on January 1, 1970. The 

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

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

agencies. The Act also establishes the CEQ to coordinate Federal environmental efforts. The process for 

implementing NEPA is outlined in 40 CFR Parts 1500–1508. The CEQ regulations specify that an EA 

serves to provide evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare a Finding of No Significant 

Impact (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 such 

impacts are predicted, then DLA would decide whether to mitigate impacts below the level of 

significance, undertake the preparation of an EIS, or select the No Action Alternative. The DLA’s 

implementing regulation for NEPA is DLAR 1000.22 (DLA 2011a). 

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 

decisionmaker to have a comprehensive view of major environmental issues and requirements associated 

with the Proposed Action. 

1.5 Agency Coordination and Public Involvement 

DLAR 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 all agencies and the public with 

an interest in the Proposed Action and alternatives to participate in this NEPA process, which will provide 

DLA with the opportunity to coordinate with and consider the views of other agencies and individuals. A 

premise of NEPA is that the quality of Federal decisions will be enhanced if proponents provide 

information to the public and involve the public in the planning process. 
4 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

This page intentionally left blank. 
5 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTION 

2.1 Proposed Action 

DLA proposes to implement the Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin RPMP and its component 

plans. 

2.1.1 Real Property Master Plan 

The RPMP provides the direction for future development of the installation over the next 20 years, and 

identifies a series of potential building, infrastructure, and energy projects that would ensure the 

installation is able to meet its current and future mission logistics and warehousing requirements in a 

sustainable and environmentally conscious manner. It is intended to provide DLA and Defense 

Distribution Depot, San Joaquin with information to support capital investment decisions and effective 

use of real property that support the short-, mid-, and long-range needs of the installation. The RPMP 

provides a framework for analyzing resource allocations, and a decisionmaking management tool to 

ensure efficient assignment, utilization, and disposal of real property assets and to resolve real property 

deficiencies and excesses. The primary aspects of the RPMP include the vision, goals, constraints and 

opportunities, design considerations, Future Development Plan, and Capital Investment Strategy 

(DLA 2013a). 

Vision: To confirm Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin’s position as the Western Strategic 

Distribution Platform for DLA by striving to meet energy efficiencies and enhance mission capabilities 

while maintaining the strength of the logistics mission through redevelopment and requirement 

modifications. 

Goals: The following seven goals were developed from the planning vision: (1) close DLA activities at 

the Sharpe Site and transfer the missions to the Tracy Site, then shift DLA installation management and 

facilities responsibilities at the Sharpe Site to the U.S. Army; (2) construct new and repurpose existing 

facilities at the Tracy Site to respond to adjustments in the DLA Distribution mission assignments; 

(3) improve the material-handling system (MHS); (4) dispose of warehouses committed for demolition; 

(5) ensure compliance with anti-terrorism/force protection (AT/FP) requirements; (6) meet 

energy-efficiency mandates; and (7) ensure effective cleanup and mitigation of environmental 

contamination. 

Constraints and Opportunities: Environmental constraints at Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin 

include air quality, noise, and water quality issues. The installation also has development constraints 

associated with surrounding land uses (i.e., road and railroad public rights-of-way and residential 

communities) and AT/FP setbacks. Planning opportunities include use of in-fill development with 

additional buildings to increase capacity or upgrade facilities. Additionally, development of the Tracy 

Annex would also be used to expand the installation. 

Design Considerations: The visual environment of a military installation is affected by the design, 

location, and maintenance of individual elements (e.g., buildings, roads, parking lots, signs, and 

landscaping). There are two major visual zones at Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin. Visual zone 

one, located in the northwest corner of the Tracy Site, is the administrative area consisting of general 

purpose offices, professional and community services, and technical support facilities. This zone includes 

buff-colored facilities and pleasing landscaping. Visual zone two is the depot operations, which 

encompass the remainder of the Tracy Site and includes large warehouses, open storage areas, and 

smaller support facilities. This zone follows a consistent color palette with visible building and door 

numbers. Design considerations do not apply to the Tracy Annex because it is currently used for 

agricultural purposes. 
6 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Future Development Plan: The Future Development Plan is the culmination of the vision, goals, and 

strategies, prioritized into a series of action plans (i.e., projects). The Future Development Plan is the 

implementation tool for the RPMP, identifying projects to be completed over the next 20 years. It 

identifies 17 military construction (MILCON) projects and 50 sustainment, restoration, and 

modernization (SRM) projects necessary to support the installation’s mission and goals. Other projects 

integrated into the Future Development Plan include the removal and paving of the former railroad yard 

in the northern portion of the Tracy Site; siting of a hazardous materials storage building; demolition of 

Buildings 1, 3, 6, 27, 36, 100, 231, 232, 234, 236, 237, and 238; siting new open storage and parking 

areas; and redesignation of secondary traffic routes. Energy and sustainability projects identified in the 

NZE Study and SP, such as solar, wind, and biomass projects; a microgrid; and energy conservation 

measures, are also included in the Future Development Plan. These projects include those that have been 

vetted and those that are still in the conceptual stage. Tables 2.1 and 2.2 identify the MILCON and SRM 

projects, respectively, in the Future Development Plan. Figure 2.1 illustrates the locations of the 

MILCON and select SRM and energy projects. Some proposed projects are not depicted on Figure 2-1

due to security concerns. 

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin offers DLA a variety of options for further development of 

existing facilities on the Tracy Site and a model for expansion onto the Tracy Annex. The Tracy Site is 

nearly fully developed. While there are “open spaces” at the Tracy Site, they are mission-essential 

commercial trailer parking or laydown yards for outside storage, parking for Government and employee 

vehicles, or utility areas. The primary developable acreage at Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin is 

the 460 acres at the Tracy Annex. 

Implementing the projects in the RPMP would improve mission capability and installation efficiency by 

siting and designing new modern, energy-efficient, sustainable buildings and infrastructure to supplement 

existing facilities (and in the future, replace outdated facilities) and by upgrading existing buildings and 

infrastructure to address life, safety, security, and mission deficiencies. The proposed projects include the 

construction of 2,170,100 square feet (ft2

) of new buildings and the demolition of 657,822 ft2 of existing 

buildings. The top planning needs that would be addressed through implementation of the RPMP are 

siting Warehouse 59 (completed in accordance with the RPMP) and replacing the outside storage area, 

siting the proposed redesigned access control point (ACP), and siting the programmed MILCON projects 

(DLA 2013a). Additionally, the proposed projects would include renewable energy and utility projects; 

improvements to buildings, roads and pavements, and other infrastructure; and implementation of 

measures to reduce consumption of energy and water and generation of waste. All projects would be 

sited to maximize functionality and encourage consolidation and reuse or redevelopment, and be designed 

to incorporate NZE and other sustainable measures. 

The proposed construction projects would increase the number of buildings on the installation that 

comply with Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and Guiding Principles for Federal 

Leadership in High Performance and Sustainable Buildings, and would be designed to use sustainable 

design concepts and other strategies to reduce energy demand, increase water efficiency, and improve 

indoor environmental quality. Energy conservation efforts and sustainable principles such as life-cycle 

cost-effective practices, green infrastructure/low-impact development (LID), and Energy Policy Act of 

2005 features would be integrated into the design of the proposed construction projects. 

Capital Investment Strategy: The Capital Investment Strategy establishes the priorities for investing in 

the installation’s real property through the identification, analysis, and selection of development 

alternatives. It weighs the options for achieving a balance between existing and required facilities against 

a variety of criteria to establish a prioritized list of projects, including those identified in Tables 2.1 and 

2.2. 
DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVI

Table 2.1 MILCON Projects in the Future Development Plan 

Fiscal 

Year 

Project Name and 

Proposed Building Construction 

Actions 

Total Square Feet 

(Construction) 

Proposed Building 

Demolition Actions 

2012 Public Safety Center 56,000 None – 2014 General Purpose Warehouse 59 365,500 None – 2019 Access Control Point 5,000 None – 

2020+ Information Systems Facility 88,000 None – 2020+ General Purpose Warehouse 60 180,000 None – 2020+ General Purpose Warehouse TBD (360,000 if 3 bays) None – 2020+ General Purpose Warehouse TBD (360,000 if 3 bays) None – 2020+ General Purpose Warehouse TBD (360,000 if 3 bays) None – 2020+ Mail Processing Facility 10,000 None – 2020+ Training Center 28,000 None – 2020+ Recycling Center 12,000 None – 2020+ Elevated Water Tank 250,000 gallons None – 2020+ Replace Box/Crate Shop 39,600 None – 2020+ 

Replace Material Handling Equipment (MHE)-Automated Material Handling System (AMHS) Maintenance Facility 

44,000 

Building 231 7,76Building 232 3,99Building 234 4,39Building 236 5,84Building 238 2,00

2020+ Facility Operations 22,000 Building 100 94,32020+ Overpass from Tracy Site to Tracy Annex TBD None – 2020+ Add bay 4, including second floor offices, to General Purpose Warehouse 57 240,000 None – 

Total New Construction 2,170,100 Total Demolition 118,

Key: TBD = to be determined Note: * Includes total square feet of demolition associated with MILCON projects only. 
8 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Table 2.2 SRM Projects in the Future Development Plan 

Fiscal 

Year Project Name Fiscal Year Project Name 

2014 Facility 13 upgrades 2014 Roofing: repairs and replacement 

2014 Facility 14 upgrades 2014 Replace sewage piping system 

2014 Facility 15 upgrades 2014 Install automatic sprinkler system 

2014 Facility 16 upgrades and window 

replacement 2014 Replace storm piping system 

2014 Facility 17 upgrades 2014 Upgrade fire pumps/controls 

2014 Facility 18 upgrades 2014 Replace fire doors 

2014 Facility 19 upgrades 2014 Replace evaporative coolers 

2014 Facility 20 upgrades 2014 Replace well pumps/motors 

2014 Facility 21 upgrades 2014 Flooring: repairs and replacement 

2014 Facility 22 upgrades 2014 

Remove existing jersey barriers at the 

south end of Building 100 and replace with 

more effective bollards 

2014 Replace perimeter fencing, Tracy Site 2015 Provide second primary electric feeder line 

2014 Construct hardwall offices in Building 

100 2015 Renovate the male and female locker rooms 

2014 Replace unit heaters and boilers - 

Warehouses 2015 Pave open area on the south side of Warehouse 57 

2014 Replace water piping system, Tracy 

Site 2015 

Maintain and repair asphalt concrete 

pavement for roadways with patching, 

overlays, and replacement 

2014 

Replace the two 5-ton and two 12.5-ton 

heating, ventilation, and air conditioning 

(HVAC) units in Building 30 

2015 Paving: repairs and replacement 

2014 Repave wood recycling area 2015 Painting: interior and exterior 

2014 Convert existing Child Development 

Center into a Fitness Center 2015 Roofing: repairs and replacement 

2014 Convert Building 101 into a Training 

Center 2015 Flooring: repairs and replacement 

2014 Paving: open storage area east of 

Warehouse 30 2015 Construct emergency ingress/egress entrance to Tracy Site (fence) 

2014 

Relocate propane station on east side 

of Warehouse 58 to northwest corner of 

Warehouse 56 

2015 Miscellaneous security upgrades 

2014 Repair/replace overhead doors 2016 Paving: repairs and replacement 

2014 Miscellaneous security upgrades 2016 Painting: interior and exterior 

2014 Paving: repairs and replacement 2016 Roofing: repairs and replacement 

2014 Painting: interior and exterior 2016 Flooring: repairs and replacement 

2014 Roofing: repairs and replacement 2016 Miscellaneous security upgrades 
Figure 2.1 MILCON Projects and Select SRM and Energy Projects in the Future Development Plan 
This page intentionally left blank. 
11 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

2.1.2 Net-Zero Energy Study 

The NZE Study balances the installation’s future energy demand from buildings, industrial processes, 

fleet vehicles, and equipment with onsite and offsite renewable energy production. It provides a 

framework for the installation to develop a strategy to meet the applicable Federal mandates for 

sustainability, energy reduction, alternative energy and fuels, and systems integration. The NZE Study 

includes energy reduction and fleet management recommendations and renewable energy projects 

through fiscal year (FY) 2040. Currently, there is only one planned renewable energy project, a 

1-megawatt (MW), single-turbine wind project that would produce approximately 2,200 megawatt hours 

(MWh) of electricity per year, which is equivalent to 7,509 million British thermal units per year 

(MMBtu/yr). This represents 6.5 percent of the NZE installation requirements. Conceptual proposed 

renewable energy projects include 26 MWs of solar photovoltaic system projects and a 3-MW biomass 

power plant. The proposed projects also include building energy conservation and efficiency measures, 

fleet vehicle and equipment reductions and replacements, development of a microgrid, and an energy 

measurement and verification (i.e., metering) program (see Appendix A). DLA requested that NZE 

installation requirements for Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin and Defense Distribution Center, 

Susquehanna (New Cumberland site) in Pennsylvania be considered together; therefore, the NZE Study 

also addresses projects at Defense Distribution Center, Susquehanna. Implementation of the NZE Study 

recommendations would result in energy reduction, fossil fuel reduction, and an increase in alternative 

fuel use; and would enable the installation to achieve an NZE footprint (DLA 2013b). 

2.1.3 Sustainability Plan 

The SP is intended to assist with the installation’s current efforts to meet or exceed relevant Federal 

mandates regarding sustainability. The SP identifies goals, objectives, and action plans that provide a 

strategy to meet the installation’s sustainability goals within the constraints of available staff and funding. 

The action plans cover the following sustainability components: energy use (including renewable energy), 

water quality and supply, waste minimization, alternative fuels and infrastructure, resource-efficient 

buildings, infrastructure investment, enterprise support, indoor air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG) 

mitigation, comprehensive planning, and others (including invasive species and biodiversity, 

procurement, electronics stewardship, food access and nutrition, and measurement and verification) (see 

Appendix A). Each action plan is tied to at least one of the goals or objectives and provides a 

quantifiable step in the overall sustainability program. The action plans are prioritized via a Capital 

Investment Strategy that leads to an Implementation Plan. The SP has a 20- to 25-year outlook that is 

driven by the sustainability vision, which looks 35 to 50 years into the future (DLA 2013c). 

2.1.4 Integrated Pest Management Plan 

The IPMP is Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin’s annual plan for its pest management program. It 

provides a sustainable approach to managing pests on the installation by using a combination of 

biological, cultural, physical, and chemical tools in a way that minimizes economic, health, and 

environmental risks. The IPMP describes past and anticipated pests and outlines the resources necessary 

for surveillance and control of these pests, including any administrative, safety, or environmental 

requirements. Nonchemical pest-control efforts are proposed to the maximum extent possible prior to the 

application of chemical pesticides. The IPMP includes pest management outlines that provide 

methodologies for implementation of the appropriate pest-control procedures for each identified pest type, 

and a pesticide-use proposal that identifies each pesticide proposed (see Appendix A). Implementation 

of the IPMP would reduce reliance on pesticides; enhance environmental protection; and help ensure 

pests do not interfere with the military mission, lower morale, damage real property, increase 

maintenance costs, or expose personnel to diseases (DLA 2013d). The lessee of the Tracy Annex is 
12 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

responsible for pest management controls on the leased agricultural land, which include appropriate state 

certification and reporting of pesticide use. 

2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, DLA would not implement the RPMP or its component plans. In 

general, implementation of the No Action Alternative would require that DLA continue to use the existing 

outdated, undersized, and inefficient facilities and abandon the proposed siting of new facilities, 

infrastructure enhancements, sustainability improvement, and pest management actions of the RPMP and 

its component plans. This would hamper the ability of the installation to meet its current and future 

mission requirements. The No Action Alternative would not meet the purpose of and need for the action, 

as described in Section 1.2. 

2.3 Alternatives Considered for the Proposed Action 

The RPMP includes an evaluation of three development plan alternatives (i.e., Alternatives 1, 2, and 3) 

for consideration. Alternative 1 addresses development based on the changes from the short-range plan 

and limits further development to infrastructure projects that would improve the installation’s conditions 

and address Federal mandates. Alternative 2 represents a more extensive development option that is not 

as constrained by fiscal limits or near-term (i.e., 10- to 15-year) development goals. Alternative 3 

provides a grander perspective, depicting development if additional funding becomes available. 

Appendix I of the RPMP provides descriptions and associated figures of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 (DLA 

2013a). A redacted version of Appendix I of the RPMP has been included in this EA as Appendix B. 

A combination of Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 (i.e., the plan for the Tracy Site from Alternative 2 and 

the plan for the Tracy Annex from Alternative 3) is the preferred development plan alternative, which is 

the Proposed Action detailed in Section 2.1. The preferred alternative was selected because it would 

allow phased build-out, while maintaining the flexibility to incorporate different kinds of funding streams 

and shovel-ready projects. It would also combine the development need on the Tracy Site with the 

potential development opportunity on the Tracy Annex. Strategies for facilities, infrastructure, and land 

use were applied against the preferred alternative to create the Future Development Plan, which is the 

basis for the project locations presented in the RPMP. 

Alternative 1 does not consider long-term planning needs; therefore, it was eliminated from further 

analysis in this EA. Individual implementation of Alternatives 2 and 3 (i.e., not using the combined, 

phased approach of the preferred alternative) would require major initial investments in infrastructure, 

new buildings, and associated demolition of older structures. These alternatives would not be feasible 

because the planning assumption states there would be no significant change in management or budget 

and the operations and maintenance (O&M)/SRM budget would continue to decline to approximately 

80 percent of current level. Therefore, Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 were eliminated from further 

analyses in this EA. 
13 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES 

All environmental resource areas were initially evaluated for potential consequences. The initial 

evaluation determined that some environmental resource areas would not be impacted or would have 

clearly insignificant impacts. These environmental resource areas were not analyzed in detail in this EA, 

and they are described as follows. 

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

airspace or hazards to airspace management. There are no active airports, runways, or airstrips 

located within 2 miles of Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin. 

■ Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice. The Proposed Action would not affect areas 

outside of DLA-permitted land. It would not include hiring workers in the local labor force, and 

would not result in any outside workers moving to the area. There would be no change in the 

number of installation personnel, area population, or demand for housing and public/social 

services. The Proposed Action would occur within the boundaries of the installation; therefore, it 

would not impact off-installation low-income or minority populations and would have no 

disproportionate impacts on low-income or minority populations. 

■ Cultural Resources. 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 

(NRHP). There are no archaeological or architectural resources at the installation that are listed 

or eligible for listing in the NRHP. 

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

from siting of the new Public Safety Center, incorporation of current design standards and AT/FP 

criteria, and redesignation of secondary traffic routes. 

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

would it impact a coastal zone. 

■ Visual and Aesthetic Resources. The Proposed Action would not involve any activities that 

would result in long-term changes to the aesthetic qualities of the area or landscape. The new 

facilities would follow the design guidelines in the Installation Design Guide. This guidance 

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

The initial evaluation also determined that there was the potential for significant effects on other 

environmental resource areas; therefore, these environmental resource areas were analyzed in detail in 

this EA. The detailed analysis in this EA determined that significant effects from the Proposed Action 

and No Action Alternative would not occur. The following sections break down by resource area the 

non-significant effects that would result from implementation of the Proposed Action. 

3.1 Land Use and Recreation 

3.1.1 Existing Conditions 

Land Use. Land use categories at the installation include Industrial, Administrative, and Installation 

Maintenance and Support at the Tracy Site and Agricultural at the Tracy Annex (DLA 2013a). Industrial 

land use consists of warehousing, transportation, and light industrial activities and encompasses most of 

the Tracy Site except for the northwestern corner (i.e., generally northwest of the intersection of Ennis 

Drive [A Street] and Medical Street). Administrative land use (e.g., general purpose offices, professional 

services, community services, and technical support facilities) is located primarily at the northwestern 

corner of the Tracy Site between Chrisman Road and Station Street, and at several small areas 
14 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

interspersed throughout the Industrial land uses in the remainder of the Tracy Site. The Installation 

Maintenance and Support land use (e.g., facilities such as maintenance, fire, safety, and utility operations) 

is at the northwestern corner of the Tracy Site adjacent to the east of the Administrative land uses. The 

Tracy Site is substantially built out with open spaces used for trailer storage, parking, and utility laydown 

yards. 

The Tracy Annex is used for agriculture (e.g., agricultural row crops and orchard operations) and, with 

the exception of an environmental remediation system, does not have any development (DLA 2013a). 

Areas outside of and adjacent to the Tracy Site include those within the City of Tracy and the 

unincorporated area of San Joaquin County, while the Tracy Annex is surrounded by unincorporated 

areas of the county. Railroad tracks divide the Tracy Site from the Tracy Annex and form the 

southeastern boundary of the Tracy Site. Residential land uses, including Residential Low (i.e., low 

density at 2.1 to 5.8 residential units per gross acre) in the City of Tracy and Rural Residential in 

unincorporated San Joaquin County, are adjacent to the west and southwest, respectively, of the Tracy 

Site, across Chrisman Road (City of Tracy 2011, San Joaquin County 2010). The remaining properties 

adjacent to the Tracy Site and Tracy Annex are in unincorporated areas of San Joaquin County and are 

designated primarily as agricultural (General Agriculture and Agricultural-Urban Reserve land use 

categories), except for a small area of Limited Industrial land use immediately east of the Tracy Site at the 

crossroads of the Union Pacific and California Northern railroads (City of Tracy 2011, San Joaquin 

County 2014). 

Recreation. Recreational land uses are limited to a fitness center and a ball field that is located at the 

northwestern corner of the Tracy Site. Sidewalks exist in some areas of the Tracy Site; however, their 

primary function is to provide access to facilities rather than for recreational purposes. The Tracy Annex 

has no designated recreational facilities. 

3.1.2 Environmental Consequences 

Proposed Action 

Land Use. Long-term, moderate, beneficial effects on land use would be expected. Due to the nature of 

the RPMP as a master planning document, its implementation would result in the siting of land uses and 

specific facilities in a manner that fully considers the existing conditions and constraints to support the 

installation’s missions effectively. Existing space and building capacities would be optimized and used 

more efficiently through specific facility siting, proposed changes to the secondary route network, design 

changes, and removal of the former railroad yard for use as storage space. The RPMP does not 

specifically assign new land use categories, but the projects in the RPMP and its component plans would 

be sited in appropriate land use areas in accordance with the RPMP and associated Future Development 

Plan. As identified in the SP, comprehensive site planning was completed using the sustainable facility 

siting methodology in which functionally similar buildings are sited in proximity to one another on the 

installation, and individual buildings are appropriately placed through consideration of building footprint, 

bulk and fenestration, orientation to the street (entrance), and AT/FP standards (DLA 2013c). None of 

the proposed projects would create land use incompatibilities on the installation. 

Implementation of the RPMP would improve compatibility between the Tracy Site and the off-installation 

residential land uses west of Chrisman Road by siting and redesigning the main entrance ACP that would 

process vehicles accessing the installation in a more efficient and safe manner. Full implementation of 

the RPMP would result in the development of the Tracy Annex with various land uses, including 

warehouses, support and maintenance facilities, solar photovoltaic systems, and other renewable energy 

projects that would change the land use category from Agricultural to Administrative, Industrial, and 

Installation Maintenance and Support. Because the Tracy Annex is surrounded primarily by agricultural 

land, it is unlikely that siting of the proposed projects would result in incompatibilities with 

off-installation land uses. However, full implementation of the RPMP at the Tracy Annex would 
15 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

permanently convert farmland to nonagricultural use. See Section 3.4.2 for more information on impacts 

on farmland. 

The siting of new facilities, removal of old facilities, and incorporation of energy-efficient and sustainable 

designs in new and existing facilities would enable implementation of measures proposed in the NZE 

Study and the SP. New construction techniques, retrofitting initiatives, and metering individual buildings 

would help curb energy usage, facilitate energy audits, support the creation of energy use baselines, and 

ultimately support the ability to meet Federal energy-reduction mandates. More efficient use of space on 

the installation would support the feasibility of establishing a micro-grid concept in future years. 

Recreation. Long-term, minor, beneficial effects on recreation would be expected. Implementation of 

the RPMP would result in the conversion of an existing nonrecreational facility into a new Fitness Center 

and would reinforce the designation of the existing ball field and surrounding area at the northwest corner 

of the Tracy Site as recreational land use. 

No Action Alternative 

Existing conditions would remain the same as described in Section 3.1.1. Therefore, no effects on land 

use and recreation would occur. 

3.2 Noise 

3.2.1 Existing Conditions 

The ambient noise environment at Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin is affected primarily by rail 

traffic on nearby railroad tracks and local vehicle traffic (DLA 2013a). Specific on-installation sources of 

noise consist of vehicular traffic, including personal vehicles, semi-trailers, forklifts, and other 

cargo-moving machines at the Tracy Site, and occasional agriculture equipment at the Tracy Annex. 

Other sources of noise at the installation could occur from aircraft using the Tracy Municipal Airport. 

The installation is approximately 2.25 miles from the 1996 and 2016 noise contours presented in the 

Tracy Municipal Airport Master Plan (City of Tracy and FAA 1998); however, noise from aircraft 

flyovers can be heard occasionally. Given these sources and the activities occurring at the Tracy Site, the 

ambient noise environment on the installation resembles an industrial setting. 

The San Joaquin County General Plan identifies the following two policies associated with noise levels 

from stationary noise sources for outdoor activity areas at noise-sensitive land uses: the maximum sound 

level shall be 70 decibels (dB) during the daytime and 65 dB during the nighttime, and the hourly 

equivalent sound level shall be 50 dB during the daytime and 45 dB during the nighttime (San Joaquin 

County 2010). The installation is not in the City of Tracy; however, adjacent property to the west 

(i.e., across Chrisman Street) is within the city boundary. The City of Tracy Noise Control Ordinance 

establishes noise limits in the City of Tracy for the following districts in 1-hour average sound levels: 

residential 55 dB, commercial 65 dB, and industrial and agricultural 75 dB (City of Tracy 2014). 

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences 

Proposed Action 

Long-term, minor, adverse effects on the noise environment would be expected. Implementation of the 

RPMP would site two new, different, permanent sources of noise on the installation, the 3-MW biomass 

plant and the 1-MW wind turbine. A common noise concern from wind turbines is low-frequency noise 

and infrasound. At distances greater than 1,000 feet, low-frequency noise and infrasound from wind 

turbine models greater than 1 MW did not noticeably impact populations (O’Neal et al. 2009). Typical 

noise separation or setback for wind turbines in residential areas is 750 to 1,500 feet (DLA 2013b). To 

minimize potential noise impacts, the proposed wind turbine should be constructed at least 1,000 feet 
16 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

from residential areas or other sensitive receptors. Biomass plants burn biomass fuel to heat water and 

produce steam that turns an electricity-generating turbine. During this process, pressurized steam would 

vent periodically, creating noise. In accordance with DOD Instruction 6055.12, Hearing Conservation 

Program (HCP), equipment being 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. 

Sufficient space exists on the Tracy Annex to site both proposed projects at proper distances from 

off-installation receptors, such as residences and schools, to ensure that there would be no significant 

noise impacts on these uses. Siting and design of proposed projects would also adhere to the noise limits 

in the City of Tracy. 

Additionally, implementation of the RPMP and SP would maximize tree planting, which would buffer 

noise pollution (DLA 2013a). No significant noise impacts are expected. 

No Action Alternative 

Existing conditions would remain as described in Section 3.2.1. Therefore, no changes on the noise 

environment would occur. 

3.3 Air Quality 

3.3.1 Existing Conditions 

San Joaquin County has been designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as 

unclassified/attainment for the following criteria pollutants: nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, and 

carbon monoxide; maintenance for particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) 

(previously serious nonattainment); nonattainment for particulate matter equal to or less than 2.5 microns 

in diameter (PM2.5); and extreme nonattainment for 8-hour ozone (O3) (USEPA 2013). San Joaquin 

County has been designated by the California Air Resources Board as unclassified/attainment for all state 

and Federal criteria pollutants except PM2.5, PM10, and O3, which are designated as nonattainment 

(CARB 2014). 

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District has established permit limits for the individual air 

emissions sources at Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin. The collective potential to emit from all 

air emissions sources on the installation does not exceed major source threshold limits and, hence, a Title 

V Major Source permit is not required for the installation. Most air emissions on the installation are 

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

(DLA 2011b). 

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences 

Proposed Action 

Long-term, minor, beneficial effects on air quality would occur. While full implementation of the RPMP 

would result in a net increase in building space at the installation, the RPMP would upgrade or replace 

older and outdated buildings with modern, energy-efficient, sustainable buildings, which would translate 

into a potential reduction in air emissions. 

The NZE Study and SP aim to reduce the amount of fossil fuel-based energy consumed at the installation 

and to achieve an NZE footprint. The NZE Study and SP identify numerous actions such as 

energy-reduction projects, energy-efficiency projects (e.g., replacement of existing boilers and heaters 

with more efficient units), fleet-management strategies, and increased reliance on alternative and 

renewable energy sources (i.e., solar, wind, and biomass projects) to accomplish these goals. Therefore, 

implementation of the NZE Study and SP would reduce fossil fuel energy consumption, which would 
17 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

reduce the amount of air emissions produced by the installation. Other action plans in the SP focus on 

improving indoor air quality and reducing GHGs. 

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 near the west-central border of the San Joaquin Valley, which composes the 

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

structural basin with the axis offset to the west and gently sloping to the north. It is bounded by the Sierra 

Nevada Range to the east, the Coast Ranges to the west, and the Sacramento River-San Joaquin River 

Delta to the north. The Sierra Nevada Range consists of igneous and metamorphic rocks; overlying the 

basement rocks are thousands of feet of sedimentary deposits. The Coast Ranges contain folded and 

faulted sedimentary rocks of Mesozoic and Cenozoic age overlain by metamorphic rocks. Cretaceous 

bedrock was thrust over younger Cenozoic marine sedimentary units. Soils make up the upper 10 to 

50 feet of the San Joaquin Valley; however, the soils are becoming depleted south of the Sacramento 

River-San Joaquin River Delta. At the installation, the Upper Tulare Member of the Quaternary- and 

Tertiary-age Tulare Formation (interbedded gravel, sand, silt, and clay) extends from a depth of 35 to 

220 feet. The Corcoran Clay member (a subunit of the Tulare, with a lower permeability lacustrine 

deposit consisting of sandy and silty clay, silt, and clay interbedded with fine sand) is encountered from 

220 to 430 feet below ground surface, while the Lower Tulare Member (lenticular deposits of clay, silt, 

and gravel) exists from 430 to 500 feet (USGS 2014, Scheirer and Magoon 2007). 

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

valley. The topography is gently sloping and ranges from 114 feet above mean sea level at the 

southernmost point of the Tracy Site (near Chrisman Road) to 47 feet above mean sea level at the 

northeast corner of the Tracy Annex (USGS 1954). The natural drainage is north-northeast towards a 

tributary of the Old River. 

Soils. Seventy-five percent of the Tracy Site is covered by buildings or pavement. Site construction and 

grading from previous development has resulted in disturbed soils. This disturbed soil unit is 

Capay-Urban land complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes, which indicates that the natural soil structure at the 

Tracy Site has been largely eliminated. The Capay-Urban land complex soil unit is moderately 

well-drained and does not pond or flood. The primary soil at the Tracy Annex, which is irrigated for 

agricultural use, is Capay clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes, which is moderately well-drained. El Solyo clay 

loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes and Stomar clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes cover a small area in southern 

portion of the Tracy Annex, directly north of the Tracy Site (SCS 1992, NRCS 2014). 

All soil units on the installation are characterized as having “very limited” use with respect to 

construction of dwellings, small commercial buildings, and streets, due to the shrink-swell characteristics 

of the soils. “Very limited” indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the 

specified use. Additionally, the soils are alkaline, indicating a corrosive effect on ferrous construction 

materials. Shallow excavations and even landscaping are rated “Somewhat limited” to “Limited” due to 

the clayey, dusty, shrink-swell nature of the soils (NRCS 2014). 

Prime Farmland. The Natural Resources Conservation Service classifies all soils at the installation as 

prime farmland, if irrigated (SCS 1992, NRCS 2014), and the California Department of Conservation 

classifies the soils at the Tracy Site as Prime Farmland and the soils at the Tracy Annex as Prime 

Farmland and Farmland of Local Importance (California DOC 2012). However, prime farmland also 
18 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

requires that an area be available for farming purposes. Therefore, the Tracy Site, which is committed to 

urban development and unavailable for farming, is not considered prime farmland. The Tracy Annex is 

considered prime farmland because irrigated farming is currently occurring there. 

Geologic Hazards. Faults within the immediate vicinity of the installation include the Midway, Black 

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

historic displacement (i.e., within the past 200 years) include the Las Positas, Marsh Creek, Calaveras, 

Hayward, and San Andreas (California DOC 2010). According to the U.S. Geological Survey, 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 ground acceleration of 16 to 32 percent of the force of gravity. In the event of an 

earthquake, a rolling ground motion would be expected in the San Joaquin Valley with little to moderate 

structural damage (USGS 2009). Due to its seismic and geologic conditions, the installation is subject to 

a moderate potential for liquefaction and a moderate to high potential for expansive soils depending on 

the specific soil conditions and location. However, the soils near the City of Tracy, such as those at the 

installation, are not considered to be as susceptible to liquefaction because the near surface soils are 

predominantly clays or sands with high silt and clay content (San Joaquin County 2010). 

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences 

Proposed Action 

Geology. No effects on geology would be expected. No unique geological features or regional lithology, 

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

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

identified in the RPMP, NZE Study, and SP for the Tracy Site would be in developed or previously 

disturbed areas; therefore, minimal change in topography would be expected. Siting of proposed projects 

at the Tracy Annex would also have negligible impacts because the land is flat. Implementation of the 

IPMP would occur throughout the installation, including the Tracy Annex after agriculture has ceased, but 

would have no effect on topography because these projects would have little to no ground disturbance. 

Soils. Long-term, minor, adverse effects on soils would be expected from implementation of the RPMP, 

NZE Study, SP, and IPMP at the Tracy Site. The projects identified in these plans would be sited in areas 

underlain by Capay Urban land complex soils that have already been disturbed. Because the Tracy 

Annex soils have not been disturbed except by farming, long-term, adverse impacts on soils would be 

expected. The timing of the proposed projects, use of best management practices (BMPs), and 

incorporation of soil-erosion and sediment-control measures into site plans would assist in limiting 

erosion and sedimentation. Limitations due to the shrink-swell characteristics of all soils at the 

installation generally cannot be overcome without soil reclamation, special design, or installation 

procedures (NRCS 2014). 

Prime Farmland. No adverse effects on prime farmland would occur at the Tracy Site because it is not 

considered prime farmland. The soils at the Tracy Annex are considered prime farmland, if irrigated. 

Full implementation of the RPMP would result in the permanent conversion of 460 acres of prime 

farmland soils as defined by NRCS, and approximately 190 acres of Prime Farmland and 270 acres of 

Farmland of Local Importance soils as defined by the California DOC to nonagricultural use, which 

would be a long-term, minor, adverse effect. 

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

hazards. All proposed buildings and infrastructure would be designed and constructed in accordance with 

Unified Facilities Criteria 3-310-03, Seismic Design for Buildings, Executive Order (EO) 12699, Seismic 

Safety of Federal and Federally Assisted or Regulated New Building Construction, and California 

Building Standards Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations), which would reduce the potential for 

adverse effects associated with siting projects in areas with geologic hazards. 
19 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

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 Proposed Action. 

3.5 Water Resources 

3.5.1 Existing Conditions 

Surface Water. There are no natural surface water bodies at Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin. 

The natural drainage in the area is towards Tom Paine Slough, approximately 2 miles north-northeast of 

the installation. Storm water runoff at the Tracy Site flows to the north via concrete-lined ditches and an 

underground conveyance system and drains to an evaporation/percolation pond in the northwestern 

portion of the Tracy Site. Only during extremely wet years is the pond allowed to be discharged to the 

San Joaquin River (DLA 2012a). See Section 3.8.1 for more information on storm water systems at the 

Tracy Site. Runoff at the Tracy Annex follows natural topography to the north. Water that is not lost to 

evaporation infiltrates the near surface sediments and recharges the shallow aquifer. 

Groundwater. The central and northern San Joaquin Valley groundwater-bearing units beneath the 

installation are composed of interbedded and unconsolidated 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 ranges from 20 to 50 feet below ground surface at the 

Tracy Site, and 10 to 20 feet below ground surface at the Tracy Annex. Perched groundwater conditions 

might be encountered within 4 feet of the ground surface due to changes in sediment texture. The 

water-bearing sediments beneath the valley can be subdivided into three hydrologic units that include an 

upper unit and a lower unit (hydrostratigraphic equivalents of the Upper and Lower Members of the 

Tulare Formation) separated by the Corcoran Clay Unit, an aquitard that serves as the principal confining 

layer beneath the installation. The upper unit consists of a semi-confined aquifer system. The lower unit 

is a confined aquifer that extends to deeper saline groundwater-bearing units. Historic releases of 

solvents to the upper unit have occurred, and several chloroethene plumes in the groundwater extend from 

the Tracy Site into the Tracy Annex. See Section 3.8.1 for more information on groundwater plumes. 

The Lower Tulare formation is moderately permeable, and accommodates most agricultural, municipal, 

and industrial production with wells producing up to 3,000 gallons per minute. Groundwater is pumped 

from three wells at the Tracy Site, then chlorinated and stored in elevated and ground-level tanks for 

domestic and other site use. The installation operates a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and manages 

storm water and wastewater on site (DLA 2009a, DLA 2010b). 

Floodplains. The installation is not in a floodplain (San Joaquin County 2009, FEMA 2014). The closest 

floodplain is associated with the Tom Paine Slough, approximately 1.25 miles north-northeast of the 

installation. 

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences 

Proposed Action 

Surface Water. Long-term, negligible, beneficial effects on surface water would be expected. At the 

Tracy Site, storm water is contained within the installation’s boundary. At the Tracy Annex, runoff 

would be better managed through the implementation of storm water initiatives presented in the SP, such 

as green storm water infrastructure. Furthermore, LID practices would be implemented in accordance 

with Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) so that post-development 

hydrology would be equal to or less than pre-development hydrology to the extent technically feasible. 

Reduction in storm water volume and overland flow would result in offsetting effects for the installation 

and regional surface waters. 
20 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Groundwater. Long-term, negligible, adverse effects on groundwater would be expected. At full 

implementation of the RPMP, impervious surfaces on the installation would increase, resulting in less 

area for infiltration and recharge of groundwater. However, adverse effects would be minimized through 

use of designs with LID features and long-term storm water-control measures for groundwater recharge in 

accordance with Section 438 of EISA. Implementation of these measures would be expected to maintain 

or restore natural hydrologic functions and provide protection of groundwater quality. 

The expansion of industrial activity on the installation has the potential for release of hazardous 

substances to groundwater; however, BMPs and implementation of the installation’s Pollution Prevention 

Plan would prevent releases having negative impacts on the environment (DLA 2010a). 

Floodplains. No effects on floodplains would be expected. The installation is approximately 1.25 miles 

from the nearest floodplain; therefore, no projects would be sited in floodplains. Siting of projects would 

not be expected to divert flow or alter floodwater volume or velocity, and designs would include 

implementation of storm water BMPs. 

No Action Alternative 

Existing conditions would remain the same as described in Section 3.5.1. Therefore, no effects on water 

resources would occur. 

3.6 Biological Resources 

3.6.1 Existing Conditions 

Vegetation. There are no natural lands at the Tracy Site; a majority of the land has been previously 

disturbed and is developed with industrial land uses with minimal native vegetation. The remaining 

vegetation consists primarily of annual grasslands in the northern and eastern portions of the Tracy Site. 

Vegetation observed during biological surveys included nonnative grasses, forbs, and ornamental shrubs 

and trees; and 31 invasive species. The Tracy Annex consists of 460 acres of agricultural land, including 

row crops such as alfalfa (Medicago sativa) and safflower (Carthamus tinctoris) (DLA 2013e). 

Wildlife. Fifty-six wildlife species (44 bird species, 8 mammals, 2 reptiles, and 2 amphibians) were 

observed on the installation during biological surveys. The ponds associated with the installation’s storm 

water system and WWTP in the northwestern portion of the Tracy Site provide foraging and resting 

habitats for various waterfowl and shorebirds, and foraging habitat and water for bats. Additionally, 

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

catesbeianus) 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 possibly 

for nesting. Additionally, several bat species have been observed on the installation, including Mexican 

free-tailed bats (Tadarida brasiliensis), Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis), big brown bats (Eptesicus 

fuscus), pallid bats (Antrozous pallidus), and a Myotis species (DLA 2013e). 

The agriculture land at the Tracy Annex provides suitable foraging and resting habitat for a wide 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 2013e). 

Protected Species. Protected species include federally listed species, state-listed species, migratory birds, 

and plant species of concern. No federally listed plant or animal species have been observed at the 

installation (DLA 2013a, DLA 2013e). No state-listed plant species or other special-status plant species 
21 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

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 State Species of Special Concern, the loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) and the burrowing 

owl (Athene cunicularia), have been observed on the Tracy Annex (DLA 2013e, Benson 2014). 

Historically, burrowing owls have not been observed at the installation, but the species was observed on 

the Tracy Annex in 2014. Four other state-listed bird species (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 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Those species and other migratory birds might use the area for 

nesting, foraging, or resting during migration (DLA 2013e). 

Wetlands. Wetlands are special aquatic sites that have a high resource value. The U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) conducted a jurisdictional determination at the installation. There are no known 

wetlands regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act on the installation; however, there are three 

percolation/evaporation ponds associated with the installation’s storm water system and WWTP at the 

Tracy Site that support wetland vegetation (DLA 2013e). 

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences 

Proposed Action 

Vegetation. Long-term, minor, beneficial and adverse effects on vegetation would be expected. The 

proposed projects in the RPMP would be sited in the developed or previously disturbed areas of the Tracy 

Site and agricultural fields of the Tracy Annex. Crop vegetation at the Tracy Annex would be impacted 

by projects sited in that location; however, siting of the projects at the Tracy Site and Tracy Annex are not 

expected to result in a loss of native vegetation. The IPMP addresses weed control and identifies 

sensitive areas that would be considered before implementing pest controls (DLA 2013d). Additionally, 

the SP proposes development and implementation of an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 

(INRMP) that would help to protect and enhance wildlife habitats (i.e., aquatic, riparian, wetlands, 

terrestrial), which would have a beneficial effect on vegetation. 

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

expected. There is a lack of native wildlife and suitable habitat in the areas where the RPMP projects 

would be sited at the Tracy Site. Agricultural land at the Tracy Annex provides foraging and resting 

habitat for various migratory bird species, and would be affected by projects sited there. However, 

similar agricultural habitat occurs widely in the area. Where possible, large trees, marsh, and riparian 

vegetation at ponds associated with the installation storm water system and WWTP, and open undisturbed 

space should be maintained as habitat for wildlife species. The wind turbine should be designed and sited 

to minimize impacts on birds and bat species. Development and implementation of an INRMP, which 

would include routine habitat assessments and monitoring programs and measures to protect and enhance 

wildlife habitats (e.g., aquatic, riparian, wetlands, terrestrial), would have beneficial effects on wildlife. 

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

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

Three California-protected bird species, including one species listed as state threatened (Swainson’s 

hawk), have been documented at the Tracy Annex. Projects sited at the Tracy Annex would have an 

adverse effect on habitat used by these species. However, similar agricultural habitat occurs widely in the 

area. Surveys would be conducted for all projects sited in an area with suitable burrowing owl habitat 

using the California Burrowing Owl Consortium survey protocol and mitigation guidelines (CBOC 1993), 

and appropriate protective measures would be implemented. A pedestrian survey of the project area and 
22 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

150-meter (500-foot) buffer would be conducted prior to 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 ground-disturbing activity. If 

activities must occur within 50 meters (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 grounddisturbing activities would occur within 75 meters (246 feet) of an occupied burrow during the breeding 

season (February 1 through August 31). The IPMP periodically evaluates ongoing and proposed pestcontrol operations to ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act. 

Minor, adverse effects on migratory birds, as previously described, would be expected. MBTA-listed bird 

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

The wind turbine should be designed and sited to minimize impacts on sensitive bird species. Due to the 

lack of natural vegetation and surface waters at the installation, significant long-term impacts are not 

expected from siting and design of projects. Development and implementation of an INRMP, which 

would include routine habitat assessments and monitoring programs and measures to protect and enhance 

wildlife habitats (i.e., aquatic, riparian, wetlands, terrestrial), would have beneficial effects on protected 

species. 

Wetlands. No effects on USACE jurisdictional wetlands would be expected. Where possible, marsh and 

riparian vegetation around ponds associated with the installation’s storm water system and WWTP should 

be maintained to provide habitat for wildlife species. 

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 

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

was developed and implemented. 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. In addition, management measures designed to protect and enhance wildlife habitats would 

not be implemented, thereby allowing for a continuing decline in the quality and complexity of the 

habitats. The No Action Alternative would not establish routine management measures to protect and 

enhance these habitats by preventing or minimizing potential impacts. 

3.7 Transportation and Infrastructure 

3.7.1 Existing Conditions 

Transportation System. The Tracy Site has three ACPs, including one for trucks, one used as the main 

entrance gate, and one for employees. The ACPs have experienced queuing issues resulting in traffic 

backups during peak travel periods. The installation road network was originally design based on a grid; 

however, as the installation expanded and warehouses were replaced, the grid was shifted and 

thoroughfares were disconnected. The traffic level of service is below optimal (DLA 2013a). The Tracy 

Annex does not have ACPs or an established road network. Access to Tracy Annex is available from 

Banta Road and 11th Street, and dirt roads provide access to the existing remediation system and 

monitoring wells. The installation uses over-the-road truck transport as a mode of moving and shipping 

supplies. There is a former railroad yard and associated tracks on the Tracy Site, but the railroad yard and 

tracks are unserviceable and not used to transport materials. The Tracy Site and Tracy Annex are 

separated from each other by California Northern commercial railroad tracks that are outside of the 

installation boundary, and Union Pacific railroad tracks form the southeastern boundary of the Tracy Site 

(DLA 2013a). 
23 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Transportation options to the installation include privately owned vehicles, bus service, and ride-share 

programs. There are no contiguous bicycle/walking routes within the installation, and sidewalks are 

limited, serving only as access ways to buildings, and generally do not interconnect facilities. 

Electrical System. The Tracy Site’s electrical distribution system consists of overhead and underground 

lines. All power distribution infrastructure located between the main breaker and the terminus at each 

building is owned and maintained by DLA. Backup power is available through several emergency 

generators located throughout the installation (DLA 2013b). A small electrical grid has been established 

at the Tracy Annex in conjunction with the groundwater remediation system. 

The total electrical consumption in FY 2011 was 21.5 million kilowatt hours (kWh), representing 

approximately 60 percent of energy use for facilities. Peak demand, estimated to be approximately 3,915 

kilowatts (kW), is primarily due to the use of air conditioning during the summer months. As of 2013, 

the installation had one of the lowest energy use intensities in the DLA (DLA 2013b). 

Natural Gas System. The installation owns, operates, and maintains its natural gas distribution system. 

In FY 2011, the installation used approximately 51,000 million British thermal units (MMBtu) of natural 

gas, which represented approximately 40 percent of the installation’s energy use (DLA 2013b) and is 

expected to increase. Current system capacity is projected to remain adequate in spite of increased 

demand (DLA 2013a). 

Liquid Fuel System. Propane, gasoline, and diesel fuel are all used for vehicle fuel at the installation. 

Propane is primarily used to fuel forklifts. Gasoline and diesel fuel are used to fuel the installation’s 

vehicles. In FY 2011, the installation used 1,327 MMBtu of gasoline and 6,541 MMBtu of diesel fuel 

(DLA 2013b). Major bulk storage consists of aboveground storage tanks. No underground storage tanks 

are used for fuel storage (DLA 2011c). 

Potable Water System. The installation owns and manages the potable water infrastructure, which 

consists of three groundwater wells (Wells 7, 8, and 9) located in the southern portion of the Tracy Site, 

two storage tanks (500,000-gallon ground-level tank and 250,000-gallon elevated tank), 19 miles of 

piping, and other associated equipment (DLA 2010b). The water is used to meet domestic and fire 

suppression demands. Daily water demand at the Tracy Site ranges from 51,000 gallons in December to 

139,000 gallons in August (DLA 2009a). Current annual water use is 34,601,000 gallons (DLA 2013c). 

Sanitary Sewer and Wastewater System. The installation owns, operates, and maintains its own WWTP 

at Building 246 in the northern portion of the Tracy Site. Treated effluent is discharged to one of two 

ponds where it percolates or evaporates. Average discharge to the ponds is 30,000 gallons per day with 

occasional peak flows of 70,000 gallons per day, with a total capacity of 350,000 gallons per day. Future 

demand is not expected to change substantially (DLA 2011d, DLA 2013a). 

Communications System. One Lucent Definity G3R phone switch is located at the installation. The 

switch has a 3,000-port capacity; 2,000 are currently in use. The local area network infrastructure at the 

site has a 1-gigabit backbone with 100-megabyte connectivity to the desktop. Maintenance of the 

switches is handled through a service contract with Avaya Technologies (DLA 2013a). 

Solid Waste Management. Solid waste is transported from the Tracy Site to an offsite municipal landfill 

by a private contractor. More than 530 tons of waste is generated annually at the Tracy Site; currently, no 

municipal waste is generated at the Tracy Annex. Recyclables are collected and marketed to a private 

contractor. The installation operates in accordance with its Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan 

(DLA 2013a). 

Storm Water System. Storm water on the installation is managed through a system of drain inlets, pipes, 

open channels, and pumping stations. Storm water on the Tracy Site is either directed to a concrete-lined 

ditch parallel to 4th Street (western system) or into an underground conveyance system that flows parallel 

to 5th Street towards a lift station near Building 208 (eastern system), both of which discharge into a 
24 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

retention pond in the northwest corner of the Tracy Site with a capacity of 24.5 acre-feet where the water 

naturally evaporates or percolates. The storm water system has proven adequate for the frequency and 

duration of most storms experienced in the area (DLA 2013c). The Tracy Annex does not have a storm 

water management system. 

Storm water from high-intensity storm events is pumped off site to the West Side District canal that 

ultimately discharges into the San Joaquin River. The Tracy Site is permitted to discharge storm water 

associated with industrial activities under California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) 

Permit Number CAS000001 Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Associated 

with Industrial Activities Excluding Construction Activities. The industrial storm water permit is issued 

by the California SWRCB under Water Quality Order Number 97-03-DWQ and lists the requirements for 

a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for an industrial facility (DLA 2012a). 

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences 

Proposed Action 

Transportation System. Long-term, minor, beneficial effects on the transportation system would be 

expected. Transportation infrastructure would be improved with the redesignation of secondary traffic 

routes at the Tracy Site and establishment of a new road network and ACP at the Tracy Annex, thereby 

providing a higher level of service throughout the installation. The proposed overpass would connect the 

Tracy Site and the Tracy Annex by providing access over the railroad tracks. The proposed redesigned 

ACP at the Tracy Site would alleviate the congestion on Chrisman Road due to slow processing of 

vehicles. The Proposed Action would preserve a single railroad track for rail shipments in the future. 

Electrical System. Long-term, moderate, beneficial effects on the electrical system would be expected. 

Electrical demand is anticipated to increase due the siting of the proposed projects, including 

development of the Tracy Annex. Implementation of the RPMP, NZE Study, and SP would result in 

additional renewable energy systems and buildings and infrastructure being designed to maximize 

efficiency and minimize demand to meet future electrical demands, while also maintaining energy 

security and independence and meeting Federal mandates established in EO 13514. Renewable energy 

projects (e.g., solar photovoltaic, wind, and biomass projects) and establishment of a microgrid as 

identified in the NZE Study would require a larger investment; however, these efforts would allow the 

installation to attain goals set in EO 13514. 

Natural Gas System. Long-term, minor, adverse effects on the natural gas system would be expected. 

Implementation of the RPMP would result in an increase in building space and natural gas energy 

requirements. The NZE Study indicates that implementation of its provisions would result in buildings 

designed and constructed to maximize efficiency and minimize demand, including the use of alternative 

fuels, partially offsetting any increase in demand for natural gas. 

Liquid Fuel System. Long-term, minor, beneficial effects on liquid fuels system would be expected. 

Implementation of recommendations in the NZE Study would result in decreased demand for gasoline 

and diesel fuel, but an increased demand for propane (DLA 2013b). The NZE Study identifies decreased 

use of gasoline/diesel-powered vehicles, and a reduced and optimized fleet through increased use of 

propane/electrical-powered fleet vehicles and use of infrastructure supporting alternative fuel distribution. 

Potable Water System. Long-term, minor beneficial effects on the potable water system would be 

expected. The efficiency and performance of the potable water system would improve with the addition 

of the proposed elevated water tank and the replacement of the piping system. Several proposed projects 

would assist the installation in attaining water conservation goals identified in EO 13514. Installing 

meters throughout the installation would assist in identifying areas in which water conservation efforts 

could be most valuable. The SP proposes distribution system audits aimed at leak detection and repair 
25 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

(DLA 2013c). The RPMP proposes the replacement of boilers and heaters with more efficient units 

(DLA 2013a). Implementation of these projects would facilitate a reduction in water use. 

Sanitary Sewer and Wastewater System. Long-term, minor, adverse effects on the sanitary sewer and 

wastewater system would be expected. New buildings and infrastructure would increase demands placed 

on the system, but would incorporate sustainable building practices, maximizing efficiency and 

minimizing demand. Replacement of the sewage piping system would improve the reliability of the 

system. The installation’s WWTP has sufficient capacity to service the increased demand; however, a 

new sanitary sewer collection system is required to support development on the Tracy Annex. 

Communications System. Long-term, minor, beneficial effects on communications systems would be 

expected. The proposed Information Systems Facility would improve information technology services 

because it has better access control than the existing facilities, which would result in a more reliable, more 

secure, and more resilient system. The current communications backbone is sufficient to provide service 

to additional buildings because the current switch use is at less than 70 percent of capacity. 

Solid Waste Management. Long-term, minor, beneficial effects on solid waste management would be 

expected. The proposed Recycling Center would facilitate the installation’s recycling program. The SP 

includes additional action plans that would reduce and improve the management of solid waste. 

Storm Water System. Long-term, minor, adverse effects on the storm water system would be expected. 

Full implementation of the RPMP would result in an increase in impervious surfaces, which would result 

in an increase in storm water runoff during high-intensity storms. However, implementation of storm 

water initiatives presented in the SP, such as green storm water infrastructure, including rainwater capture 

and rain gardens, and incorporation of LID practices into project design would reduce the amount of 

runoff, thereby reducing demand on the system. The proposed replacement of the storm piping system 

would also improve the reliability of the system. 

No Action Alternative 

Existing conditions would remain the same as described in Section 3.7.1. Therefore, no effects on 

transportation and infrastructure would occur. 

3.8 Hazardous Materials and Wastes 

3.8.1 Existing Conditions 

Hazardous Materials, Hazardous Wastes, and Petroleum Products. The installation is a large-quantity 

generator of hazardous wastes, including a variety of paint wastes, solvents, acids, bases, and 

off-specification mission stock. These wastes are collected from several daily pickup areas throughout 

the installation (DLA 2011e). The Tracy Site operates a Resource Conservation and Recovery Actpermitted hazardous waste storage facility at Building 38 and the Recoup Area of Warehouse 28 (Permit 

No. CA4971520834) (California DTSC 2014). Both facilities are 90-day hazardous waste accumulation 

areas in which hazardous wastes generated on the installation can be stored for up to 90 days. Building 

38 functions as the site of the Hazmat Pharmacy and is the primary 90-day hazardous waste accumulation 

area at the Tracy Site (DLA 2011e). 

Environmental Restoration Program. There are 21 Installation Restoration Program (IRP) sites at the 

Tracy Site. Of the 21 IRP sites, 3 are areas with groundwater contamination that emanates from several 

contamination locations on the Tracy Site, 3 are soil vapor extraction sites, and 15 are areas with soil 

contamination. Contaminated groundwater plumes have been identified emanating from the Tracy Site, 

including Operable Unit 1 plumes (Area 3 trichloroethylene [TCE] plume, North Central TCE plume, and 

the Banta Road plume) and the Northwestern Corner Dieldrin plume. Contaminated groundwater is being 

remediated and land use controls (LUCs) such as prohibition on use of contaminated groundwater for 
26 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

domestic use, appropriate signage, compliance with notification procedure for land use changes, and 

maintenance of administrative controls (i.e., RPMP addendum and notification procedures), are in place. 

LUCs also exist on the Tracy Site for contaminated soil left in place at Area 1/Building 237, Solid Waste 

Management Unit (SWMU) 2/3, SWMU 6, and Defense Site Environmental Reporting and Tracking 

System 67 where contaminant concentrations in subsurface soil could affect construction workers 

(DLA 2012b, DLA 2013a). 

Asbestos-Containing Material. Facilities constructed prior to 1980 are assumed to contain 

asbestos-containing material (ACM). Most of the buildings associated with the projects in the RPMP 

were constructed prior to 1980. According to the installation’s Final Asbestos Survey Report and 

Management Plan, which was completed in February 2009, there are several facilities at the Tracy Site 

that are known to contain ACMs. The most common ACMs found in these buildings include roofing and 

wall materials, fire doors, and molding. No suspected ACM disposal areas were identified within the 

installation (DLA 2009b). 

Lead-Based Paint. The use of most lead-based paint (LBP) was banned in 1978; hence, all buildings 

constructed prior to 1978 are assumed to contain LBP. Most of the buildings associated with the projects 

in the RPMP were constructed prior to 1978. 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls. Based on the age of many facilities at the Tracy Site (e.g., constructed prior 

to 1979), it is possible that some electrical equipment contains polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). 

However, all electrical equipment identified as containing PCBs has been removed and appropriately 

disposed. There might still be some fluorescent light ballasts that contain PCBs, although large-scale, 

energy-saving programs have replaced many of these PCB-containing fixtures. 

Pesticides. The installation uses an integrated pest management approach to pest control to minimize the 

types and quantities of pesticides used at the installation. Least-toxic chemical controls are used, where 

appropriate. Pesticides are stored at Building 238. Pesticide application is conducted by Pest 

Management personnel who follow a general policy of evaluating the need for chemical application prior 

to spraying (DLA 2011e, DLA 2013d). 

Radon. The USEPA has established a guidance radon level of 4 picoCuries per liter (pCi/L) in indoor air 

for residences. Radon gas accumulations greater than 4 pCi/L are considered a health risk to occupants. 

San Joaquin County is in Radon Zone 3, which has a low potential for radon levels above 4 pCi/L. Radon 

Zone 3 has a predicted average indoor radon screening level of less than 2 pCi/L (USEPA 2014). 

3.8.2 Environmental Consequences 

Proposed Action 

Hazardous Materials, Hazardous Wastes, and Petroleum Products. Long-term, minor, beneficial 

effects would be expected. A new hazardous materials storage facility is proposed to supplement the 

existing Hazardous Material Storage Warehouse at Warehouse 28. Furthermore, actions identified in the 

NZE Study and SP, including compliance with Federal mandates, continuation or increase of incentives 

for waste diversion, and reduction of fossil fuel use, would reduce waste and disposal and consumption of 

petroleum products. 

Environmental Restoration Program. No effects on the environmental restoration program would be 

expected in relation to potentially impacted soils or groundwater. The majority of facilities proposed for 

demolition and new construction coincide with or are proximal to sites with LUCs. These LUCs 

specifically restrict the land from being used for residential development, play areas, or daycare facilities. 

The uses and buildings proposed in the RPMP and its component plans are consistent with the LUCs. 

Additionally, the installation’s Environmental Office would review all proposed construction projects, 

evaluate the proposed project with respect to the land use restriction and other LUCs such as notification 

procedures, and issue a record of environmental consideration with the findings of the evaluation. Where 
27 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

LUCs are in place, future buildings are required to be designed and constructed with engineered controls 

specifically designed to prevent the migration of soil vapor to indoor air (DLA 2013a). Only proposed 

projects consistent with the LUC objective would be approved. Several RPMP projects would be sited 

within areas undergoing groundwater monitoring; however, all projects would avoid existing groundwater 

monitoring wells. 

Asbestos-Containing Material. Short-term, minor, adverse and long-term, minor, beneficial effects 

would be expected. Implementation of the RPMP would remove older buildings, which are more likely 

to contain ACM. Demolition and upgrade of all buildings would be conducted under appropriate 

guidance for asbestos abatement. Proposed new buildings would be designed to be free of ACMs, to the 

extent feasible, resulting in an overall decrease in these materials at the installation. 

Lead-Based Paint. Short-term, minor, adverse and long-term, minor, beneficial effects would be 

expected. Implementation of the RPMP would replace some buildings assumed to contain LBP 

(i.e., those constructed prior to 1978) with newer buildings that would not contain LBP. Removal of LBP 

would be conducted under appropriate guidance for LBP removal. Proposed new buildings would be free 

of LBP, resulting in an overall decrease in these materials at the installation. 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls. Long-term, minor, beneficial effects would be expected. Implementation of 

the RPMP would replace buildings that might have PCB-containing equipment and site new buildings 

that would not contain PCB-containing equipment. The removal of PCBs would be beneficial by 

decreasing these materials on the installation. 

Pesticides. Long-term, minor, beneficial effects would be expected. Implementation of the IPMP would 

reduce reliance on pesticides and ensure that pest management equipment is programmed for 

replacement. 

Radon. No effects from radon would be expected. The installation would conduct radon testing to 

confirm the radon levels at the various project locations, as necessary. If the testing results were to 

confirm radon at concentrations above 4 pCi/L, the new buildings would be designed to include 

appropriate radon-control infrastructure to limit the potential for indoor radon accumulation. 

No Action Alternative 

Existing conditions would remain the same as described in Section 3.8.1. Therefore, no effects on 

hazardous materials and waste would occur. 
28 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

This page intentionally left blank. 
29 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

4.0 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 and the spatial area of consideration is the installation and surrounding 

region. 

For most resource areas, the present effects of past actions are now part of the existing environment 

described in Section 3. Identification of projects occurring at and nearby the installation during the same 

time as the Proposed Action ensures that all present and reasonably foreseeable future activities that have 

the potential to result in cumulative effects are taken into account. The present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions identified for this cumulative effects analysis are the following: 

■ Improve Chrisman Road from a rural road to an arterial-level traffic way. 

■ Modify 11th Street to provide access to the proposed Tracy Annex ACP. 

■ Construct a 113-acre multimodal transit center on the northeast corner of Chrisman Road and 

11th Street, northwest of the Tracy Annex. 

The Proposed Action, when combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, 

would not result in cumulatively significant effects on any resource area. The resource areas that have the 

potential to be cumulatively affected are presented in the paragraphs below. These paragraphs describe 

the non-significant cumulative effects that would occur. 

Land Use and Recreation. The Proposed Action would enhance land use compatibility on the 

installation because future development would be sited and designed according to the installation’s 

RPMP. Future development off-installation would be sited and designed according to local zoning and 

planning regulations. 

Noise. Selective siting and design of proposed projects identified in the RPMP would minimize 

long-term noise effects of future development. A temporary increase in noise would occur from 

off-installation construction, demolition, and land-disturbing activities, but would be limited to areas 

adjacent to work areas. Siting of the multimodal transit center would likely generate additional long-term 

noise. Sensitive noise receptors, such as residences and schools, are not expected to be affected. 

Air Quality. The Proposed Action would result in a potential reduction in air emissions. Permanent 

increases in air emissions would occur from new stationary air emissions sources; however, the removal 

of existing stationary air emissions sources would permanently reduce air emissions. 

Geological Resources. Increased erosion and sedimentation as a result of full implementation of the 

RPMP and during excavation, grading, and filling of off-installation projects would be possible. Adverse 

effects would be minimized by siting and design practices identified in the RPMP and component plans, 

and other standards. 

Water Resources. Added impervious surfaces would increase the amount of storm water runoff and 

reduce the amount of surface area available for groundwater recharge. LID and storm water management 

techniques would be implemented to minimize storm water runoff. 

Biological Resources. Cumulative effects on vegetation, wildlife, and protected species would be limited 

due to the developed area and minimal habitat capable of supporting protected species surrounding the 

installation. The Proposed Action is not expected to result in a loss of native vegetation, but agricultural 

vegetation used by migratory birds as habitat would be removed; however, similar agricultural habitat 

occurs widely in the area. 
30 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Transportation and Infrastructure. Improvement and modification of off-installation roads would 

improve traffic flow, alleviate traffic congestion, and improve transportation infrastructure in the vicinity 

of the installation and throughout the region. However, the multimodal transit center could increase 

traffic in the vicinity and become a congestion point. On-installation traffic service would be improved 

with the proposed redesigned ACP at the Tracy Site, redesignation of secondary traffic routes, and 

establishment of a new road network and ACP at the Tracy Annex. 

Hazardous Materials and Wastes. Construction activities would result in a temporary increase in the use 

of hazardous materials and the generation of hazardous wastes. 

4.2 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

Unavoidable adverse effects would occur if the Proposed Action was implemented. Adverse effects that 

could not be avoided include siting of proposed projects in undeveloped areas of the installation, thereby 

increasing disturbance of topography and soils, and storm water runoff and reduced groundwater 

infiltration from the added impervious surface. Each of these effects is discussed in detail in Sections 3.1

through 3.8. None of these effects would be significant. 

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 installation’s RPMP and its component plans would not result in any significant or 

incompatible land use changes on- or off-installation. The RPMP and its component plans consider the 

installation’s existing conditions and constraints in the siting, design, and timing of the projects proposed 

within these plans. 

4.4 Relationship Between Short-term Uses of Man’s Environment and Maintenance 

and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity 

The Proposed Action would include siting of proposed facilities in accordance with the RPMP, 

encouraging the use of alternative forms of transportation, implementing sustainability actions to reduce 

energy consumption, modernizing utility infrastructure, and establishing appropriate natural resources 

management processes. The long-term beneficial effects would ensure that the installation is able to meet 

its current and future mission requirements, while ensuring the energy efficiency and sustainability of the 

installation. 

4.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 

The Proposed Action would not involve the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of energy resources 

and human resources. The Proposed Action would result in the commitment of land for the siting of the 

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 would 

increase energy consumption from the net increase in building space, but it would also reduce energy 

consumption by upgrading and replacing older and outdated buildings with modern, energy-efficient, 

sustainable buildings. The installation’s NZE Study and SP would reduce the amount of energy 

consumed at the installation and encourage the use of energy from renewable, non-fossil-fuel-based 

sources. The installation would achieve an NZE footprint after full implementation of the NZE Study in 

20 to 30 years. 

4.7 Natural or Depletable Resource Requirements and Conservation Potential 

The Proposed Action would require no significant use of natural or depletable resources. 
31 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

5.0 CONCLUSION 

The introduction to Section 3 provides information on which resource areas were selected to be analyzed 

in detail in the 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. Implementation of the Proposed Action or No Action Alternative would not result in any 

individual or cumulatively significant environmental impacts. Therefore, preparation of an EIS is not 

warranted and issuance of a FONSI would be appropriate. 

Table 5.1 Potential Impacts of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative 

Resource Area Proposed Action No Action 

Alternative 

Land Use and Recreation Long-term, moderate, beneficial (land use); Long-term, 

minor, beneficial (recreation) No impact 

Noise Long-term, minor, adverse No impact 

Air Quality Long-term, minor, beneficial No impact 

Geological Resources Long-term, negligible to minor, adverse No impact 

Water Resources Long-term, negligible, beneficial and adverse No impact 

Biological Resources Long-term, minor, beneficial and adverse No impact 

Transportation and Infrastructure Long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial and adverse No impact 

Hazardous Materials and Wastes Short-term, minor, adverse and long-term, minor, 

beneficial No impact 
32 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

This page intentionally left blank. 
33 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

6.0 REFERENCES 

Benson 2014 Benson, Maurice. 2014. Personal communication between Mr. Maurice Benson 

(Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin) and Ms. Leigh Hagan (HDR) 

regarding the observance of burrowing owls on the Tracy Annex. 20 June 2014. 

California DOC 

2010 

California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2010. 2010 Fault Activity Map 

of California. Available online: 

<http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/FAM/faultactivitymap.html#>. Accessed 20 

May 2014. 

California DOC 

2012 

California DOC. 2012. San Joaquin County Important Farmland 2010. 

Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Available online: 

<http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/SanJoaquin.aspx>. 

Accessed 16 May 2014. 

California DTSC 

2014 

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2014. Hazardous 

Waste Tracking System Report for Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin – 

Tracy Site (ID Number: CA4971520834). Available online: 

<http://hwts.dtsc.ca.gov/report_list.cfm>. Accessed 19 May 2014. 

CARB 2014 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2014. Area Designations Maps/State 

and National. As of 17 April 2014. Available online: 

<http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm>. Accessed 20 May 2014. 

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 20 

June 2014. 

City of Tracy 

2011 

City of Tracy. 2011. City of Tracy General Plan. 1 February 2011. Available 

online: <http://www.ci.tracy.ca.us/documents/2011_General_Plan.pdf>. 

Accessed 20 May 2014. 

City of Tracy 

2014 

City of Tracy. 2014. “Noise Control.” Tracy, California, Code of Ordinances. 

Chapter 4.12, Article 9. Available online: 

<https://library.municode.com/HTML/16660/level3/TIT4PUWEMOCO_CH4.1

2MIRE_ART9NOCO.html#TOPTITLE>. Accessed 22 May 2014. 

City of Tracy and 

FAA 1998 

City of Tracy and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 1998. Tracy 

Municipal Airport Master Plan Draft Environmental Assessment/Environmental 

Impact Report. 4 August 1998. 

DLA 2004 Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). 2004. Environmental Assessment of the 

Summary Master Plan Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California. 

6 July 2004. 

DLA 2009a DLA. 2009. DDJC Tracy Site Potable Water Well Blending Plan. 5 October 

2009. 
34 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

DLA 2009b DLA. 2009. Final Asbestos Survey Report and Management Plan. Section 7: 

Summary of Survey Information by Facility. 9 February 2009. 

DLA 2010a DLA. 2010. Final Pollution Prevention Plan, DLA Distribution, San Joaquin, 

California. October 2010. 

DLA 2010b DLA. 2010. Final Water Conservation Plan for Defense Distribution Depot 

San Joaquin, California – Sharpe and Tracy Sites. August 2010. 

DLA 2011a DLA. 2011. Environmental Considerations in Defense Logistics Agency 

Actions. Defense Logistic Agency Regulation (DLAR) 1000.22. Effective 2 

December 2011. 

DLA 2011b DLA. 2011. Title V Permit Applicability Determination, Tracy Site, District 

Facility # N-263. 20 January 2011. 

DLA 2011c DLA. 2011. Draft Final SPCC Plan – DDJC Tracy Site. May 2011. 

DLA 2011d DLA. 2011. Final Sewer System Management Plan DDJC – Tracy Site. 

October 2009, revised January 2011. 

DLA 2011e DLA. 2011. Final Hazardous Waste Management Plan DDJC – Tracy Site. 

December 2006. Revised April 2011. 

DLA 2012a DLA. 2012. Final Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, Defense 

Distribution Depot, San Joaquin – Tracy Site. February 2012. 

DLA 2012b DLA. 2012. Final Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin – Tracy Site Second 

Five-Year Review Report. August 2012. 

DLA 2013a DLA. 2013. Real Property Master Plan for Defense Distribution Depot, San 

Joaquin. 31 December 2013. 

DLA 2013b DLA. 2013. Net-Zero Energy Study for Defense Distribution Depot, San 

Joaquin. 5 March 2013. 

DLA 2013c DLA. 2013. Sustainability Plan for Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin. 

February 2013. 

DLA 2013d DLA. 2013. Integrated Pest Management Plan for Defense Distribution Depot, 

San Joaquin. May 2013. 

DLA 2013e DLA. 2013. Biological Resources Survey Report Tracy Site. February 2013. 

FEMA 2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2014. Map Service Center. 

Available online: 

<https://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/mapstore/homepage/MapSearc

h.html?isFloodMap=true&AddressQuery=tracy%2C%20ca#>. Accessed 18 

May 2014. 
35 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

NRCS 2014 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2014. Web Soil Survey. 

Available online: <http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/>. Accessed 23 May 

2014. 

O’Neal et al. 2009 O’Neal, Robert D., Robert D. Hellweg, and Richard M. Lampeter. 2009. A 

Study of Low Frequency Noise and Infrasound from Wind Turbines. Prepared by 

Epsilon Associates, Inc. Report No. 2433-01. July 2009. 

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 16 May 

2014. 

San Joaquin 

County 2009 

San Joaquin County. 2009. San Joaquin County Flood Zone Changes. Final 

FEMA DFIRM Data. 17 April 2009. Available online: 

<http://www.sjgov.org/pubworks/Docs/FLOOD%20INFO/05-15-

09%20Flood%20Zone%20Changes%20PAL%20Map%20Final%20DFIRM.pdf>. 

Accessed 18 May 2014. 

San Joaquin 

County 2010 

San Joaquin County. 2010. San Joaquin Countywide General Plan 2010. 

Available online: <http://www.sjgov.org/commdev/cgibin/cdyn.exe?grp=planning&htm=generalplan>. Accessed 20 May 2014. 

San Joaquin 

County 2014 

San Joaquin County. 2014. General Plan land use for unincorporated portions 

of San Joaquin County. Accessed via San Joaquin County District Viewer. 

Available online: <http://sjmap.org/website/DistrictViewer/Viewer.asp>. 

Accessed 20 May 2014. 

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. 2007. 

SCS 1992 Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1992. Soil Survey of San Joaquin County, 

California. 

USEPA 2013 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2013. Nonattainment Status 

for Each County by Year for California. As of 5 December 2013. Available 

online: <http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/anay_pa.html>. Accessed 19 

May 2014. 

USEPA 2014 USEPA. 2014. EPA Map of Radon Zones. Available online: 

<http://www.epa.gov/radon/zonemap.html>. Accessed 16 May 2014. 

USGS 1954 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1954. Tracy, California NW/4 Carbona 15’ 

Quadrangle. 
36 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

USGS 2009 USGS. 2009. “California-Nevada, 2% in 50 years.” 2008 National Seismic 

Hazard Maps. 23 March 2009. Available online: 

<http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/products/conterminous/2008/maps/wus/ca/1

hzSA.CA.2pc50.jpg>. Accessed 20 May 2014. 

USGS 2014 USGS. 2014. National Geologic Map Database. Geologic Unit: Tulare. 

Available online: <http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/NewUnits/unit_12143.html>. 

Accessed 20 May 2014. 
37 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 

This EA has been prepared under the direction of DLA. The personnel that contributed to the preparation 

of this document are listed here: 

Michelle Bare 

Undergraduate Studies General Studies 

Years of Experience: 23 

Project Management

Louise Baxter 

M.P.A. Public Administration 

B.S. Political Science 

Years of Experience: 20 

Editing 

Timothy Didlake 

B.S. Earth Sciences 

Years of Experience: 6 

Air Quality 

Megan Gambone 

M.S. Biology 

B.S. Environmental Science 

Years of Experience: 8 

Biological Resources 

Leigh Hagan

M.E.S.M. Environmental Science and 

Management 

B.S. Biology 

Years of Experience: 9 

Project Management 

Chris Holdridge

M.S. Environmental Assessment 

B.S. Environmental Science/Chemistry 

Years of Experience: 17 

Quality Control 

Melissa Hoover 

M.S. Environmental Science 

B.S. Biological Sciences 

Years of Experience: 16 

Land Use and Recreation, Hazardous Materials 

and Wastes 

Jonathan Kramer 

M.S. Geology 

B.S. Geology 

Years of Experience: 9 

Geological Resources, Water Resources, 

Hazardous Materials and Wastes 

Cheryl Myers

A.A.S. Nursing 

Years of Experience: 22 

Formatting 

Dave Noffsinger

M.S. Hydrogeology 

B.S. Geology 

Years of Experience: 24 

Geological Resources, Water Resources 

Vincent Passaro, QEP 

M.S. Environmental Science 

B.S. Fisheries and Wildlife 

Years of Experience: 14 

Noise 

Robyn Peterson

B.S. Biological Engineering 

Years of Experience: 18 

Transportation and Infrastructure 

Steven Peluso, CHMM, CPEA 

B.S. Chemical Engineering 

Years of Experience: 28 

Air Quality 

Tanya Perry

B.S. Environmental Science 

B.A. Communications 

Years of Experience: 13 

Noise 

Tony Schmucker, P.G.

B.S. Geosciences 

Years of Experience: 7 

Transportation and Infrastructure 

Andrea Ward, E.I. 

M.E. Environmental Engineering 

B.S. Civil Engineering 

Years of Experience: 5 

Transportation and Infrastructure 

Valerie Whalon 

M.S. Fisheries Science 

B.S. Marine Science 

Years of Experience: 17 

Biological Resources 
38 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

This page intentionally left blank 
A-1 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

APPENDIX A. PROPOSED PROJECTS IN COMPONENT PLANS 

Net-Zero Energy Plan 

The Net-Zero Energy Plan includes the following proposed projects: 

Energy Reduction Projects 

■ Survey energy conservation measures (ECMs), including lighting retrofits, installation of 

destratification fans, infrared radiant heaters, and retrocommissioning of heating, ventilation, and 

air conditioning (HVAC) systems. 

■ Solar walls. 

■ Fiscal year (FY) 2009 Audits ECMs 

o Install programmable or addressable thermostats in Buildings 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 

22, 29, 30, 56, 57, 100, and 201. 

o Use local occupancy-based heaters in Buildings 17 and 21. 

o Infrared radiant heaters in Building 56. 

o Retrocommissioning of existing window air conditioners. 

o Lighting retrofits. 

■ Facility Energy Decision System (FEDS) Model ECMs, including retrofits of lighting, hot water, 

and roof insulation. 

■ eQUEST Model ECMs, including implementing enhanced HVAC controls in areas that are both 

cooled and heated. 

■ Building demolition and construction projects identified in the Real Property Master Plan 

(RPMP). 

Fleet Management Projects: 

■ An E85 alternative fuel gas station on the installation. 

■ Twenty electric charging stations, including 10 charging stations spread throughout the 

installation with the majority located within the confines of the transportation motor pool. 

■ Exchange 7 fossil-fueled light truck vehicles for alternative-fueled vehicles. 

■ Exchange 20 poor-performing vehicles in the current fleet. 

■ Exchange 7 fossil-fueled heavy truck vehicles and passenger vehicles for alternative-fueled 

vehicles. 

■ Ensure the right vehicle is used for the appropriate mission. 

■ Exchange the majority of sport utility vehicles for small-midsize sedans. 

■ Exchange the remaining gasoline material-handling equipment (MHE) for electric/propane MHE 

and endeavor to standardize all MHE to be electric/propane. 

■ Balance the overutilization and underutilization of equipment pieces. 

■ Exchange 17 gasoline forklifts for electric/propane-butane forklifts. 

■ Reduce equipment fleet size by the initial 105 pieces recommended for turn-in. 

■ Expand data collection information on equipment to the same degree of detail that is collected for 

vehicles. 
A-2 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Microgrid Projects 

■ Plan for connection to a grid-connected microgrid system and, if feasible, an islanded microgrid 

system. 

o PRC 1: Collect data (energy reduction, fleet management). 

o PRC 2: Establish metrics, baselines, and future projections of energy, fuel, and 

renewables. 

o PRC 3: Implement education and awareness (microgrid). 

o PRC 4: Perform Level 1 analysis of renewable energy. 

o PRC 5: Perform assessment of influencers to maximize energy conservation, energy 

controls, and energy efficiency (ECMs, energy-efficiency measures, controls, SMART 

technology [i.e., meters and appliances]). 

o PRC 6: Perform assessment of project implementation support (site location, permits, 

technology, team capital). 

o PRC 7: Develop characteristics of microgrid (architecture, technical requirements, 

operational requirements). 

o PRC 8: Develop management and implementation plans (action plans/projects, timelines, 

priorities, life cycle economics, contractual and financing options). 

o PRC 9: Develop measures and time periods to validate performance. 

o PRC 10: Continually evaluate and make modifications to program. 

o PRC 11: Conduct additional study for abnormalities in voltage regulation, protection and 

coordination, voltage stability, rotor angle stability, or frequency regulation. 

o MRV 1: Update data and perform measurement and validation. 

o MRV 2: Perform additional studies as required (feasibility of renewable energy 

alternatives, environmental requirements, and others). 

o MRV 3: Obtain permits. 

o MRV 4: Execute initial measurement and verification protocol/accept “project.” Execute 

steady state measurement and verification protocol. 

o PPT 1: Obtain HOMER (microgrid software). 

o TRN 1: Train HOMER (microgrid software). 

o TRN 2: Provide operations and maintenance (O&M) training for technicians and O&M 

personnel on microgrid, controls, and SMART technology. 

o TRN 3: Provide supervisory training on microgrid, controls, and SMART technology. 

Renewable Energy Projects 

■ Support of option that accommodates Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin and Defense 

Distribution Center, Susquehanna concurrently, and implement nine renewable energy projects 

that would accomplish the goal of net-zero energy for the two DLA installations. 

o Solar wall (i.e., transpired solar collectors) for Buildings 82, 732, 760, 765, and 2001 at 

Defense Distribution Center, Susquehanna 

o 1-megawatt (MW) utility-scale wind project (2,200 MWh/yr) 

o 26-MW utility-scale solar photovoltaic system (47,830 MWh/yr), including 8-MW and 

18-MW projects 

o 10-MW biomass (wood) power plant (74,913 MWh/yr). 
A-3 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Sustainability Plan 

The Sustainability Plan includes the following proposed projects. Major projects identified in Table 5.2 

(Master Project List) of the RPMP are marked with an asterisk. 

■ INF 1: Develop a regular program of distribution system audits and leak detection studies.* 

■ INF 2: Perform a condition assessment of the sewer system to determine necessary upgrades.* 

■ INF 3: Replacement of sewer system elements with low-impact development (LID) 

improvements.* 

■ INF 4: Maintain and improve energy management system.* 

■ INF 5: Conduct formal study of basewide systems (surety, survivability, supply, sufficiency, and 

sustainability). 

■ INF 6: Use electrical and renewable energy (supply and sustainment). 

■ INF 7: Place critical systems underground (survivability).* 

■ INF 8: Monitor ingress/egress with cameras and motion detectors (survivability).* 

■ INF 9: Ensure utility adequacy (sufficiency).* 

■ MRV 1: Develop and maintain measurement and verification protocols. 

■ MRV 2: Procure and maintain meters.* 

■ MRV 3: Develop and maintain audit program.* 

■ MRV 4: Commission and re-commission buildings. 

■ MRV 5: Measure and verify building performance. 

■ MRV 6: Measure and verify recently installed ECMs, energy-efficiency measures, water 

conservation measures, water-efficiency measures, and aspects of sustainability component 

systems. 

■ ENG 1: Complete the metering project.* 

■ ENG 2: Train energy and facility personnel.* 

■ ENG 3: Implement the remaining Energy Conservation Programs identified in the FY 2009 

Energy Audits.* 

■ ENG 4: Centralized access and control of direct digital control systems.* 

■ ENG 5: Energy awareness - Building energy bills.* 

■ ENG 6: Level 2 analysis for FEDS Model ECMs.* 

■ ENG 7: eQUEST Model ECMs.* 

■ ENG 8: Continue to implement the use of light-emitting diode and solar power public realm 

lighting.* 

■ PLN 1: Meet with regional transportation planning, renewable energy, watershed, and 

environmental management agencies. 

■ PLN 2: Reduce land, building, and infrastructure footprint. 

■ PLN 3: Follow best practices for land use planning. 

■ FUL 1: Increase alternative-fuel vehicles and electric cars for Government-owned vehicles. 

■ FUL 2: Evaluate alternative fuel/electric/fuel cell/hydrogen sources with provider. 

■ FUL 3: Evaluate long-term use of central heating to cogeneration dual-fuel plant. 

■ FUL 4: Review Vehicle Allocation Methodology. 
A-4 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

■ FUL 5: Develop and maintain measurement and verification protocols. 

■ FUL 6: Promote awareness of fuel conservation/efficiency and mission readiness. 

■ FUL 7: Form a Vehicle Allocation Methodology Board and develop policies. 

■ FUL 8: Develop/update fleet management plan. 

■ FUL 9: Develop and approve of Distribution and Allowances. 

■ FUL 10: Develop training and education program for mechanics and first line supervisors.* 

■ FUL 11: Determine effectiveness of scheduled services. 

■ FUL 12: Promote awareness of alternatively fueled vehicles. 

■ FUL 13: Turn-in excess vehicles (rate at 10 per year). 

■ FUL 14: Maintain good relations with General Services Administration. 

■ FUL 15: Replace aging fleet vehicles with newer fuel-efficient models (rate at two per year). 

■ FUL 16: Replace remaining fleet vehicles (5 gross trailer weight and under) with alternatively 

fueled models (rate at 10 per year). 

■ FUL 17: Replace remaining equipment with alternatively fueled models (rate at 15 per year). 

■ IAQ 1: Enhance awareness of indoor air quality, including green materials, green cleaning, and 

air infiltration. Continue the safety ambassador program to reinforce the current strong command 

support. 

■ IAQ 2: Capture the installation’s current indoor air quality program. 

■ IAQ 3: Develop community health plan.* 

■ IAQ 4: Enhance awareness of indoor air quality, including green materials, green cleaning, and 

air infiltration. 

■ WTR 1: Install meters and communication system.* 

■ WTR 2: Isolate and evaluate outdoor water use.* 

■ WTR 3: Improvements from water quality modeling.* 

■ WST 1: Implement sustainable supply-chain management. 

■ WST 2: Start composting.* 

■ WST 3: Recycle rigid plastics, cans, bottles, and glass.* 

■ WST 4: Increase outreach and education efforts.* 

■ WST 5: Right-size recycling and trash containers.* 

■ WST 6: Invest in a recycling center.* 

■ GHG 1: Develop 2008 baseline and report annually.* 

■ GHG 2: Formulate Energy Management Plan (Scopes 1 and 2).* 

■ GHG 3: Formulate Energy Management Plan (Scope 3).* 

■ RNE 1: Install solar photovoltaic – utility scale (8 MW). 

■ RNE 2: Install biomass (wood) power plant (3 MW). 

■ RNE 3: Planned Projects – New Cumberland Site.* 

■ RNE 4: Planned Projects – Tracy Site.* 

■ RNE 5: Start permit process (air quality, environmental, building).* 

■ RNE 6: Environmental study/decision for photovoltaics and biomass.* 

■ RNE 7: Validate plan and develop initial measurement and verification protocol. 
A-5 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

■ RNE 8: Provide O&M training for technical personnel on controls/technology.* 

■ RNE 9: Provide O&M training for supervisory personnel on controls/technology.* 

■ RNE 10: Finalize measurement and verification protocol. 

■ RNE 11: Continually evaluate and make modifications to program. 

■ ENS 1: Survey workers and staff, and integrate best practices.* 

■ ENS 2: Website discussion board for Division Chiefs and encourage regular teleconferences.* 

■ ENS 3: Disseminate website discussion board that would allow questions and comments to flow 

between all levels of the agency.* 

■ ENS 4: Communication Study to determine effectiveness and efficiencies.* 

■ ENS 5: Training opportunities to understand how each system works.* 

■ ENS 6: Behavior Change Study.* 

■ MGD 1: Implement microgrid based on completed microgrid study recommendations. 

■ MGD 2: Update microgrid plans.* 

■ MGD 3: Obtain HOMER latest model. 

■ MGD 4: Train HOMER latest model.* 

■ MGD 5: Validate plan and develop initial measurement and verification protocol. 

■ MGD 6: Start permit process (air quality and environmental [grid-connected]).* 

■ MGD 7: Construct grid-connected microgrid.* 

■ MGD 8: Provide O&M training for technical personnel on controls/technology (grid-connected).* 

■ MGD 9: Provide O&M training for supervisory personnel on controls/technology (gridconnected).* 

■ MGD 10: Finalize measurement and verification grid-connected protocol. 

■ MGD 11: Continually evaluate and make modifications to program. 

■ MGD 12: Start permit process (environmental [islanded]).* 

■ MGD 13: Construct islanded microgrid.* 

■ MGD 14: Provide O&M training for technical personnel on controls/technology (islanded).* 

■ MGD 15: Provide O&M training for supervisory personnel on controls/technology (islanded).* 

■ MGD 16: Finalize measurement and verification islanded protocol. 

■ MGD 17: Continually evaluate and make modifications to program. 

■ REB 1: Inspect 10 buildings per year, starting FY 2013 (in accordance with Guiding Principles 

Memorandum of Understanding).* 

■ REB 2: Develop a standard set of energy- and water-efficient technologies to incorporate into 

each building type. 

■ REB 3: Develop and implement guidelines for comfort control for building interior. 

■ BIO 1: Program funding and develop an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan.* 

■ BIO 2: Open communication with San Joaquin Council of Governments. 

■ BIO 3: Ensure the Installation Design Guide requires the use of native species. 

■ PRO 1: Continue to be the honest broker in requiring the rationale for procuring nongreen items. 

■ PRO 2: Continue to hire from within and choose strong, able, and caring personnel to become 

supervisors. 
A-6 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

■ PRO 3: As new missions are introduced at the Installation or as missions expand, continue to 

maintain a reasonable number of credit card holders. 

■ PRO 4: Train the workforce (with Defense Acquisition University).* 

■ PRO 5: Continue to support, update, and maintain DLA tracking. 

■ ELS 1: Consolidate data centers.* 

■ ELS 2: Reduce printers at personal work stations. 

■ ELS 3: Implement a pilot study for Thin Client.* 

■ ELS 4: Review shipping and receiving operations, and investigate companies with large shipping 

and receiving operations to glean best practices.* 

■ ELS 5: Continue compliance with mandates in terms of purchases, tracking, and disposal. 

■ FAN 1: Consolidate operations to one kitchen/cafeteria and a mobile truck. 

■ FAN 2: Develop pilot compost program.* 

■ FAN 3: Develop relationships with local food vendors to continue to promote possible 

partnerships. 

Integrated Pest Management Plan 

The Integrated Pest Management Plan includes the following proposed 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. 
B-1 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

APPENDIX B. APPENDIX I OF THE DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, 

SAN JOAQUIN REAL PROPERTY MASTER PLAN (REDACTED) 
B-2 

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT